Category: Military Intelligence

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • PM Modi, national leaders extend birthday wishes to President Murmu

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday led the nation in extending birthday greetings to President Droupadi Murmu, lauding her life and leadership as a source of inspiration for millions across the country.
     
    In a post on X, the Prime Minister said, “Warmest birthday wishes to Rashtrapati Ji. Her life and leadership continue to inspire crores of people across the country. Her unwavering commitment to public service, social justice and inclusive development are a beacon of hope and strength for everyone. She has always worked to empower the poor and downtrodden. May she be blessed with a long and healthy life in service of the people.”
     
    President Murmu, who assumed office as the 15th President of India on July 25, 2022, is the country’s first tribal woman to occupy the highest constitutional post. Her journey from grassroots politics to the Rashtrapati Bhavan is often cited as a testament to the strength and inclusivity of Indian democracy.
     
    Defence Minister Rajnath Singh also conveyed his greetings, noting that her rise to the presidency reflects the robust democratic foundations of the country. “Her steadfast commitment to social justice, empowerment of the poor and inclusive growth continues to inspire the nation,” he posted on X.
     
    BJP National President and Union Minister J.P. Nadda, in his message, praised the President’s contribution to tribal welfare and her focus on education and healthcare. “Your dedication towards public welfare and building a ‘Viksit Bharat’ is inspiring,” he wrote.
     
    Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari extended his wishes for her good health and long life, while Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, writing
  • Russia says any use of tactical nuclear weapons by US in Iran would be catastrophic, TASS reports

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in Iran would be a catastrophic development, Russian state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying on Friday.

    Peskov was commenting on what he called speculative media reports about that possibility. His comments, as reported by TASS, did not mention any media by name.

    The Guardian newspaper reported that U.S. defence officials were briefed that using conventional bombs against Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow would not be enough to destroy it completely, and that destroying it would require initial attacks with conventional bombs and then dropping a tactical nuclear weapon from a B-2 bomber.

    However, the British newspaper said President Donald Trump was not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, in meetings in the White House Situation Room.

    Trump said on Thursday that any decision on potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict would be made within two weeks.

    Russia, which has close ties with Iran, has warned strongly against U.S. military intervention on the side of Israel.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Happy birthday to Sergey Lenshin!

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    Today is not an ordinary Friday, because the State University of Management congratulates the director of the Institute of Distance Education, corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor Sergei Lenshin on his birthday.

    For over 10 years, Sergey Ivanovich has been at the helm of the correspondence education of the State University of Management, constantly improving and updating the system in accordance with modern trends. As a result of painstaking work and established discipline among the staff, the Institute is growing, employees clearly perform their duties, students regularly enroll and graduate, replenishing the ranks of specialists who are needed today more than ever.

    We wish the birthday boy new achievements in educating future leaders of our country, successful completion of assigned tasks and support from a team of like-minded people.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Howe, PhD candidate in International Relations, Monash University

    A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive its US-made Virginia-class submarines on schedule from 2032.

    AUKUS supporters suggest the review is not overly concerning – they point out governments typically review major programs after taking office. As they note, the UK Labour government did the same when it commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove to review AUKUS in 2024. Moreover, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently reviewing AUKUS.

    Crucially, however, not all reviews are created equal. Given the US assessment is, according to US officials, being conducted to ensure alignment with the imperatives of “America first”, there is a risk the US will not supply Australia with the Virgina-class submarines it feels it requires to deter China. The UK reviews, on the other hand, did not and do not carry such risks.

    The findings of the Lovegrove review remain confidential, but have been shared with Canberra and were incorporated into the UK government’s recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Defence Select Committee is yet to report, but being public, its findings are likely to generate further debate in Australia.

    Why are the UK reviews different?

    The Defence Select Committee review, launched independently of the government, is an accountability mechanism that scrutinises progress but lacks the power to set policy.

    Meanwhile, the Lovegrove review was never intended to question AUKUS, as its terms of reference made clear. Instead, its focus was more on what progress has been made so far and any barriers that might inhibit future success.

    There was never any real chance the Lovegrove review would end or amend the UK’s participation in AUKUS, because it has widespread support across mainstream British politics. In foreign and security policy terms, cross-party consensus is the norm in the UK.

    However, in the case of AUKUS, two specific factors stand out.

    First, AUKUS provides a welcome means to share the burden on a project the UK was already pursuing. Even before AUKUS was announced, the UK had initiated plans for its next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines, awarding initial design contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth £85 million (A$170 million).

    Considering this, AUKUS – and specifically Australia’s £2.4 billion (A$4.6 billion) investment into Rolls-Royce’s reactor production line – was a welcome boon for the cash-strapped British government.

    Second, AUKUS has been a crucial component of the UK’s post-Brexit re-emergence. Coming after a period in which Brexit negotiations consumed the British government, it provided important substance to “Global Britain” and its Indo-Pacific tilt.

    AUKUS’s cross-party appeal might initially seem strange, given its close association with Boris Johnson’s Brexiteer government. After all, with its “Britain Reconnected” plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has been keen to demonstrate how it differs from its Conservative predecessors. This most recent example comes with the SDR’s NATO-first approach, which some interpreted as a sharp break.

    However, this is a difference in style rather than substance. Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government had announced Britain had delivered the tilt and would focus on consolidating its position.

    In other words, it was making no new commitments. The SDR does not amend this position. It makes clear that “NATO first does not mean NATO only”. This means continuing support for agreements such as AUKUS, which, according to the review, are crucial to shaping the global security environment.

    Whether Britain has the capability to shape the global security environment is a question the SDR addresses, if implicitly, by acknowledging the “hollowing out” of the UK’s armed forces. Reconstituting Britain’s armed forces is consequently a key focus of Starmer’s government, which sees rearmament as a route to reindustrialisation.

    Militarisation as central to ‘rebirth’

    In this rebirth, the government is focusing heavily on the arms industry as a means to bring well-paid, high-skilled jobs to post-industrial parts of the country. There is debate about whether this is the best way to create jobs and growth, but the Starmer government has gone all-in on the strategy.

    Indeed, one of the most notable outcomes of the SDR is that the UK plans to invest substantial sums in its fleet of attack submarines, as it plans to go from seven Astute-class boats to 12 AUKUS-class ones.

    This ambition may provide some comfort to Australian observers as it indicates the scale of the UK’s commitment to AUKUS. Still, achieving the goal will require a significant increase in industrial capacity, as Britain will need to produce a new submarine every 18 months. The record of the UK government on major capital projects suggests this is a heroic ambition.

    For example, the last three Astute-class boats to be commissioned took between 130 and 132 months to build. The sixth and seventh boats of the nearly 25-year-old program are yet to enter service. Moreover, even the active Astute boats are beset by problems; in the first half of 2024, none of the five in-service boats completed an operational deployment due to maintenance issues.

    So, while in the context of the US review, Britain’s commitment is likely welcomed, any comfort must be tempered by the expectation that problems will also likely emanate from Britain.

    Tom Howe is a Young Professionals Member of the AIIA.

    ref. Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter – https://theconversation.com/britains-support-for-aukus-is-unwavering-but-its-capacity-to-deliver-is-another-matter-259266

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Russia: PLA comments on British patrol ship’s passage through Taiwan Strait

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, June 20 (Xinhua) — Liu Runke, a spokesman for the Eastern Zone Combat Command of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), on Friday criticized Britain for allowing its coastal patrol ship to pass through the Taiwan Strait on June 18 and trying to stir up trouble over the incident.

    According to Liu Runke, the forces of the Eastern Zone Combat Command provided escort and protection for the British ship during its passage through the strait, while maintaining a high level of readiness to resolutely repel all threats and provocations. -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday retain control over California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.

    A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.

    Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

    Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

    Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.

    At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump’s authority to deploy the troops.

    The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

    The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.

    Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city.

    The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.

    California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

    The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a “rebellion.” The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

    The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.

    (Reuters)

  • US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday retain control over California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.

    A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.

    Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

    Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

    Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.

    At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump’s authority to deploy the troops.

    The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

    The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.

    Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city.

    The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.

    California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

    The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a “rebellion.” The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

    The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI China: PLA spokesperson slams UK warship’s sailing through Taiwan Strait 2025-06-20 On June 18th, the UK’s offshore patrol vessel (OPV) HMS Spey sailed through the Taiwan Strait and hyped it up publicly.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      BEIJIG, June 20 — On June 18th, the UK’s offshore patrol vessel (OPV) HMS Spey sailed through the Taiwan Strait and hyped it up publicly. Troops assigned to the Chinese PLA Eastern Theater Command (ETC) tracked and monitored the action of the UK warship throughout the process and dealt with it effectively, said Senior Captain Liu Runke, spokesperson for the navy of the Chinese PLA ETC, in a written statement released on Friday.

      The spokesperson slammed that the UK’s relevant remarks distorted the legal principles and confused the public, and its actions were deliberately intended to disrupt the situation, undermining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. “The troops of the PLA Eastern Theater Command will remain on high alert at all times and resolutely counter all threats and provocations,” stressed the spokesperson.

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI China: China slams Philippines for illegal operations in South China Sea 2025-06-20 08:47:46 A China Coast Guard (CCG) spokesperson on Thursday warned the Philippines that any attempts to infringe upon China’s territorial sovereignty are futile.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      BEIJING, June 19 (Xinhua) — A China Coast Guard (CCG) spokesperson on Thursday warned the Philippines that any attempts to infringe upon China’s territorial sovereignty are futile.

      The CCG has taken measures against the recent illegal activities of Philippine vessels in the South China Sea in accordance with the law and the professional code of conduct, said Liu Dejun, the CCG spokesperson.

      From Sunday to Wednesday, the Philippines dispatched multiple vessels to carry out illegal operations near Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao of the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea, according to Liu.

      “The Philippine vessels have repeatedly engaged in illegal infringement and provocations under the pretext of ‘fishery protection,’ undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea,” he said.

      He emphasized that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao, as well as their adjacent waters.

      The CCG will continue conducting regular law enforcement operations in the waters under China’s jurisdiction to safeguard China’s national sovereignty and maritime rights, Liu said.

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 14, 2025 [Image 6 of 6]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on


    SUVA, Fiji (June 14, 2025) U.S. Navy Lt. Corey Day, right, an entomologist assigned to Navy Medicine Readiness Training Command, and Lt. j.g. Derek Chipmon, left, a public health planner with the Pacific Partnership 25 (PP-25) team, are given an apiary tour by a local beekeeper in Suva, Fiji, during PP-25, June 14, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.14.2025
    Date Posted: 06.18.2025 23:14
    Photo ID: 9123241
    VIRIN: 250614-N-ED646-2596
    Resolution: 8394×5595
    Size: 15.59 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ

    Web Views: 3
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Concludes Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025 [Image 1 of 9]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on


    SUVA, Fiji (June 16, 2025) Capt. Mark B. Stefanik, left, mission commander of Pacific Partnership 2025, greets Mr. Samuela Togenavanua, local tribe leader of Suva, during a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Waiqanake District School in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.16.2025
    Date Posted: 06.19.2025 21:08
    Photo ID: 9123894
    VIRIN: 250616-N-ED646-6545
    Resolution: 8640×5760
    Size: 7.19 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ

    Web Views: 1
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Concludes Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025 [Image 7 of 9]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on


    SUVA, Fiji (June 16, 2025) Capt. Mark B. Stefanik, left, mission commander of Pacific Partnership 2025 (PP-25), presents a commemorative gift to Mr. Samuela Togenavanua, local tribe leader of Suva, during a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Waiqanake District School as part of PP-25 in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.16.2025
    Date Posted: 06.19.2025 21:08
    Photo ID: 9123901
    VIRIN: 250616-N-ED646-7511
    Resolution: 8640×5760
    Size: 7.98 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ

    Web Views: 1
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Concludes Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025 [Image 7 of 9]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on


    SUVA, Fiji (June 16, 2025) Capt. Mark B. Stefanik, left, mission commander of Pacific Partnership 2025 (PP-25), presents a commemorative gift to Mr. Samuela Togenavanua, local tribe leader of Suva, during a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Waiqanake District School as part of PP-25 in Suva, Fiji, June 16, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.16.2025
    Date Posted: 06.19.2025 21:08
    Photo ID: 9123901
    VIRIN: 250616-N-ED646-7511
    Resolution: 8640×5760
    Size: 7.98 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ

    Web Views: 1
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists killed in Israel’s June 13, 2025, attack are displayed on a sign as a plume of heavy smoke and fire rise from an oil refinery in southern Tehran Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

    At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities.

    Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran’s knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran’s Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

    Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel.

    As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call “scientist targeting” from 1944 through 2025.

    The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel’s recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations.

    But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country’s desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality.

    A policy with a long history

    Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler’s ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs.

    In our data set, we classified “targeting” as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs.

    The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks.

    Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries’ nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli’s home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project.

    Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development.

    The wrecked cars in which four of Iran’s nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014.
    Scott Peterson/Getty Images

    By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria’s Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities.

    With its proxy “axis of resistance” defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward.

    And in the months leading up to Israel’s recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump’s first term, the president withdrew the U.S. from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement – and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war.

    Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site.

    Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks’ purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical.

    Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory.

    Israel’s logic in going after scientists

    Why target nuclear scientists?

    In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force.

    Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state’s efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation.

    Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary’s nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as “a significant blow to the regime’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

    Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025.
    Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Despite Israel’s focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists.

    Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs.

    Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development.

    Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond.

    Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

    Jenna Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-scientists-have-long-been-targets-in-covert-ops-israel-has-brought-that-policy-out-of-the-shadows-259263

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: 1,500 jobs created at UK nuclear weapons headquarters as sector boasts above average wages

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    1,500 jobs created at UK nuclear weapons headquarters as sector boasts above average wages

    Thousands of high-skilled jobs and hundreds of apprenticeships have been created to help keep the United Kingdom protected around the clock, with newly published figures highlighting the economic benefits of the defence nuclear industry.

    • New figures reveal that 1,500 skilled roles have been created in the last year at the UK’s nuclear weapons technology centre AWE.
    • Government study shows that people working in defence nuclear industry receive 20% above average UK salary.
    • Defence Secretary visits top secret site as £15 billion investment in sovereign UK nuclear warhead supports the Plan for Change with nearly 10,000 jobs across the UK.

    It comes as the government’s delivers a landmark £15 billion investment in this parliament into the renewal of the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead – confirmed through the recent Strategic Defence Review – to keep the British people safe while supporting almost 10,000 UK jobs. 

    The figures from government analysis published today also show that average salaries in the defence nuclear industry reach £45,500 – 20% higher than the UK average.  

    Over the last year, 1,500 new skilled staff, and double the number of apprentices and graduates, have joined AWE in Aldermaston, Berkshire – the UK’s nuclear weapons technology centre – all vital to the success of the nuclear deterrent by playing a critical role in the development and maintenance of the nuclear warhead stockpile.  

    It comes as John Healey was the first Defence Secretary to visit AWE since 2018, and he hailed the economic growth impact for the local area, as AWE celebrates its 75th anniversary.  

    The AWE workforce of 9,500 staff, including 3,000 engineers and 1,500 scientists, demonstrates the defence nuclear sector as an engine for economic growth, backing the government’s Plan for Change. This milestone year reflects AWE’s crucial contribution to the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent – keeping a nuclear-armed submarine at sea continuously – ensuring the security of the nation and our NATO allies around the clock.  

    Defence Secretary, John Healey MP said:

    The nuclear weapons technology delivered at AWE keeps us all safe every minute of the day. The skilled men and women working here play a fundamental role in deterring global conflict and that cannot be underestimated.

    However, our nuclear deterrent doesn’t just protect us, it also powers prosperity. From the design and development of the warhead in Aldermaston, to shipbuilding in Barrow and maintenance in Plymouth, to deployment for operations from Clyde, defence is an engine for growth. The Defence Nuclear Enterprise delivers on the Plan for Change by backing thousands of jobs across the country. 

    Through the Strategic Defence Review we are unshakeable in our commitment to maintaining our nuclear deterrent – it is the ultimate guarantor of our national security and the security of our NATO allies.

    AWE is part of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE) – the partnership of organisations that operate, maintain, renew and sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent as part of a national endeavour which supports more than 48,000 jobs across the country – set to rise to 65,000 in the next decade. 

    Through the Nuclear Skills Task Force Skills Plan, nearly 4,000 early career starters are projected to have entered the wider nuclear sector over the last year, with the total number of graduate and apprenticeship roles in the sector aiming to double over the next 10 years. 

    During his visit, the Defence Secretary met with staff, scientists and apprentices to acknowledge the establishment’s legacy, celebrate current achievements, and highlight the importance of investing in future talent. AWE welcomed nearly 500 graduates, apprentices and placement students in 2024/25 – double the previous year – many of them from local communities. 

    The defence nuclear industry wage premium also brings prosperity to some of the most economically disadvantaged communities in the UK, with over half of those employed in the defence nuclear industry living in areas targeted for economic regeneration. 

    The visit comes after the SDR and Spending Review provided the commitment and funding for the UK to produce a new submarine every 18 months in future years. It follows the commitment to grow the UK’s attack submarine fleet to up to 12 under the AUKUS partnership.

    Updates to this page

    Published 19 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-Evening Report: Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.

    But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.

    As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.

    While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term “austerity”, her May budget cut the government’s operating allowance in half, to $1.3 billion. This came on top of budget cuts last year of around $4 billion.

    Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.

    What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.

    New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.

    How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?

    Austerity and managerialism

    In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.

    Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.

    In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.

    We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.

    Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.

    But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.

    Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964.
    Getty Images

    Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.

    In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.

    In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.

    The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.

    This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.

    What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.

    What are budgets for?

    Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.

    Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.

    Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.

    For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.

    But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.

    From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.

    To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.

    Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?

    Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.

    ref. Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? – https://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-cost-cutting-governments-spend-more-than-ever-how-can-we-make-sense-of-this-258902

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines.

    But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of “fiscal responsibility” and austerity politics.

    As part of the mission to “cut waste” in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised program run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered “saving for taxpayers” of $130 million – in line with the government’s overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting.

    While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term “austerity”, her May budget cut the government’s operating allowance in half, to $1.3 billion. This came on top of budget cuts last year of around $4 billion.

    Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings.

    What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing.

    New Zealand’s public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9% in 1972 to 35.9% in 2022. And this wasn’t unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9% in 1972 to 29.9% in 2022.

    How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever?

    Austerity and managerialism

    In a recent paper, I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used.

    Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that.

    In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics.

    We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism – “Rogernomics” being the New Zealand variant – to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business.

    Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity’s growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform.

    But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity’s managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget.

    Godfather of ‘rational’ budgeting: US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at a Vietnam War briefing in 1964.
    Getty Images

    Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years – such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture – have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defense.

    In the early 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles.

    In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defense Department’s budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan.

    The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System. Its goal was to create a “rational” budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed.

    This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing – or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out.

    What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy. These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the “New Public Management” framework that transformed state sectors all over the world.

    What are budgets for?

    Dramatic moments of spending cuts – such as the 1991 “Mother of all Budgets” in New Zealand or Elon Musk’s recent DOGE crusade in the US – stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking.

    Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about.

    Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, “automatic stabilisers” inject public money into the economy to pick it back up.

    For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society’s future commitments.

    But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function – managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives.

    From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used.

    To return to New Zealand’s school lunch program, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches – and public spending more broadly.

    Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches?

    Ian Lovering is affiliated with the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa.

    ref. Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? – https://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-cost-cutting-governments-spend-more-than-ever-how-can-we-make-sense-of-this-258902

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM meeting with Prime Minister of Bahrain: 19 June 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    PM meeting with Prime Minister of Bahrain: 19 June 2025

    The Prime Minister welcomed His Royal Highness Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Prime Minister of Bahrain to Downing Street today.

    The Prime Minister welcomed His Royal Highness Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Prime Minister of Bahrain to Downing Street today.

    The leaders reflected on the strength of the UK-Bahrain relationship, and welcomed the UK becoming a full member of the Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement (C-SIPA) today. The agreement will deepen trilateral cooperation with Bahrain and the United States on regional security at a critical time, both agreed.

    The Prime Minister also welcomed the signing of the Strategic Investment and Collaboration Partnership, building on the two-way investment partnership between the countries, and how this will unlock new investment, growth and jobs into the UK, delivering on the Plan for Change. 

    The leaders also underscored the importance of the new Defence Cooperation Accord between the two countries, deepening joint military training and building on the two nations’ strong naval ties.

    Highlighting the strength of the 200-year relationship between both nations, the leaders looked forward to further cooperation, including trade negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council. 

    Turning to the situation in the Middle East, the leaders called for de-escalation and both agreed on the need for enduring and closer relationships across the region to support stability. 

    The Prime Minister and Crown Prince looked forward to speaking again soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 19 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Banking: Independent Petroleum Association of America Awards Highest Honor to Midland’s Don Sparks of Discovery Operating, Inc.

    Source: Independent Petroleum Association of America

    Headline: Independent Petroleum Association of America Awards Highest Honor to Midland’s Don Sparks of Discovery Operating, Inc.

    Independent Petroleum Association of America Awards Highest Honor to Midland’s Don Sparks of Discovery Operating, Inc.

    66th Annual Oil & Gas Lifetime Achievement Award Presented to Discovery Operating, Inc. Chairman and Cofounder

    WILLIAMSBURG, VA – At the 96th Annual Meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in Williamsburg, VA, Don Sparks the cofounder and chairman of the board of Discovery Operating, Inc. was presented with the 2025 Chief Roughneck Award.

    IPAA represents thousands of independent businesses that develop 91 percent of America’s oil and natural gas wells. The Chief Roughneck honor dates back to 1955 and has included pioneers in the industry. Sparks was selected by industry peers as the 66th recipient of the award. Past winners of the Chief Roughneck Award can view viewed on the American Oil & Gas Historical Society website.

    The Chief Roughneck Award recognizes one individual whose accomplishments and character represented the highest ideals of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. The award is considered one of the most meaningful honors in the industry; the award and the character behind it – Joe Roughneck – symbolize the spirit, determination, leadership and integrity of individuals who have made a lasting impression on the energy industry.

    Jeff Eshelman, IPAA President and CEO: “It is the IPAA leadership’s honor to present the Chief Roughneck Award to Don Sparks. Don has made his mark on Midland, mark on the industry and mark on the country. We are immensely grateful to have had him and his family active in IPAA and our advocacy for decades. His technical consulting and independent producing background enables him to be especially sensitive to the particular needs of independent producers, along with working interest participants and royalty interest owners. He’s a true patriot and has played a significant role in our country achieving energy dominance. Don and the Sparks family are the embodiment of this award, and we wish them and Discovery Operating, Inc. success for many more years and generations.”

    Don Sparks, cofounder and Chairman of the Board of Discovery Operating, Inc.: “I’ve been very blessed to work in an industry that I truly believe helps this world and all the people in it and I’m proud to be a part of it. I thank those that helped me get here, it was not by myself. It was one of my dreams to build a family company; My wife has been in partnership in Discovery Operating, Inc. with me from the beginning, and I’ve been blessed to have my sons and three grandchildren involved.  I’ve been blessed with the guys that work with me in the field; they go out there everyday and put their bodies and their time and energy into making sure this industry survives and gets by no matter the oil price. Thank you to the IPAA for this recognition.”

    Don Sparks was born in Pampa, Texas, raised in Amarillo, Texas, and received his bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering from The University of Texas at Austin in 1962. After graduation, Sparks served as an officer in the U.S. Navy for four years and worked in various engineering and consulting capacities for Bailey, Sipes, Williamson and Runyan; Freeport Oil Company; and Shell Oil Company. He co-founded Discovery Operating, Inc. (DOI) in 1973. More than five decades later, Discovery Operating has evolved into a classic small family owned and operated independent oil and gas company with 31 full-time employees. Discovery operates approximately 420 wells located within a 300-400 mile radius of Midland. Today with the horizontal shale play, DOI’s operated production is over 15,000 BOPD and 35 million cubic feet per day of natural gas. He has been influential in the development of the Wolfcamp and Spraberry shales, and the logging suite and analysis he helped establish has been the basis for picking the landing zones in the horizontal wells drilled and completed in the Midland Basin today. Sparks also cofounded Platt, Sparks & Associates with Ronald Platt which evaluates properties, performs reservoir studies and provides expert testimony for hearings and litigations in Midland and Austin; both men retired from the firm in 2014.

    Sparks is a registered professional engineer and a renowned member of the petroleum engineering community. He has received numerous awards in recognition of his accomplishments, including the IPAA’s Leadership Award, the University of Texas Cockrell School of Engineering Distinguished Graduate Award and the Hearst Lifetime Achievement Energy Award. He previously served as president of the Permian Basin Chapter of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, director of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association and regional vice president, governor and executive committee member of the IPAA. He also served as a member of the U.S. Department of Energy Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee. He is an active member of the National Society of Petroleum Engineers, American Association of Drilling Engineers and Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. Don also served on the Executive Committee and as chairman of the Mountain States Legal Foundation Executive Board.

    Sparks currently resides in Midland, Texas, with his wife, Gwyndolyn. They have three sons, eleven grandchildren and twelve great-grandchildren. All three of his children are partners in Discovery Operating, Inc. William Jeffrey Sparks is Chief Operating Officer, Kevin Don Sparks is Chief Executive Officer and Christopher Todd Sparks is Chief Financial Officer and takes care of outside investments. Gwyn Sparks works at Discovery in accounting.

    About the Independent Petroleum Association of America

    The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is a national upstream trade association representing thousands of independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies across the United States. Independent producers develop 91 percent of the nation’s oil and natural gas wells. These companies account for 83 percent of America’s oil production, 90 percent of its natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) production, and support over 4.5 million American jobs. Learn more about IPAA by visiting www.ipaa.org and following @IPAAaccess on Twitter.

    About Discovery Operating Company

    Founded in 1973, Discovery Operating, Inc. is a family owned, independent exploration and production company located in Midland, Texas with 31 employees. The company currently operates over 400 wells across Texas.

    MIL OSI Global Banks

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Extent of the EU’s protection against hybrid threats – E-000524/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission has undertaken several initiatives to protect democracy in the EU, in particular with the European Democracy Action Plan of 2020 and the Defence of Democracy Package of 2023[1].

    Their success is reflected, among other things, in the general satisfaction of respondents to standard Eurobarometer surveys with the way democracy works in the EU[2].

    As regards transparency of financial flows, several pieces of EU legislation are relevant. Regulation (EU) 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising[3], which will enter into full application on 10 October 2025, will support national oversight of funding of political advertising and minimise the risk of information manipulation and foreign interference by requiring the provision, among others, of oversight authorities and record-keeping of information on the amounts received for political advertising services.

    As part of the Defence of Democracy package the Commission presented a legislative proposal that aims to enhance transparency and democratic accountability of interest representation activities on behalf of third countries which seek to influence policies, decision making and the democratic space. The proposal is currently being discussed by the co-legislators.

    In terms of following the money in general, Member States’ competent authorities will have better access to the information they need with the application of the anti-money laundering package[4], which was adopted by the co-legislators in 2024, and will enter into application in July 2027.

    In 2025, the Commission will propose a European Democracy Shield, which will, among other things, set out steps to combat foreign information manipulation, interference and disinformation.

    • [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6453.
    • [2] Standard Eurobarometer 102 — Autumn 2024 — November 2024 — Eurobarometer survey https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3215; Standard Eurobarometer 100 — Autumn 2023 — December 2023 — Eurobarometer survey https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3053; Standard Eurobarometer 98 — Winter 2022-2023 — February 2023 — Eurobarometer survey https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2872.
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32024R0900.
    • [4] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/financial-crime/anti-money-laundering-and-countering-financing-terrorism-eu-level_en#policy-making-timeline .

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Update on Developments in Iran

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

    Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.

    In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

    He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.

    Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”

    “The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”

    It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.

    IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.

    He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”

    Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”

    “Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”

    Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:

    The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.

    Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.

    Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.

    There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.

    “It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.

    Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.

    At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.

    On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

    At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.

    The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.

    At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.

    While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.

    “There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.

    Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.

    “Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Update on Developments in Iran

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

    Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.

    In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

    He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.

    Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”

    “The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”

    It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.

    IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.

    He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”

    Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”

    “Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”

    Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:

    The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.

    Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.

    Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.

    There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.

    “It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.

    Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.

    At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.

    On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

    At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.

    The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.

    At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.

    While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.

    “There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.

    Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.

    “Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Update on Developments in Iran

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

    Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.

    In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

    He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.

    Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”

    “The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”

    It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.

    IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.

    He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”

    Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”

    “Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”

    Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:

    The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.

    Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.

    Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.

    There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.

    “It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.

    Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.

    At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.

    On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

    At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.

    The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.

    At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.

    While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.

    “There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.

    Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.

    “Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Inverness to mark Armed Forces Week with flag raising ceremony

    Source: Scotland – Highland Council

    A flag raising ceremony will take place on Monday, 23 June at Inverness Town House to mark the beginning of Armed Forces Week which culminates in Armed Forces Day on Saturday 28 June 2024.  Armed Forces Day flags will be raised on buildings and landmarks around the country including at Inverness Town House and Highland Council’s Headquarters at Glenurquhart Road.

    On Saturday 28 June at 13.45, there will be an Armed Forces Day Parade led by the Inverness Royal British Legion Scotland Band which will march from the Eastgate Centre, through the High Street to Inverness Cathedral for a Drumhead service supported by the Inverness Military Wives Choir.

    Provost of Inverness and Area, Cllr Glynis Campbell Sinclair said: “This is a chance for us to show our support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community: from serving personnel to service families, veterans, and cadets.

    “This flag raising ceremony is an opportunity to recognise the work that our Armed Forces do to protect our country and show our deep appreciation for their service. They would not be able to undertake their role without the incredible support of their family and friends. I am delighted to have been asked to take the salute on Saturday along with Wing Commander S Spence and David Sutherland CBE”.

    19 Jun 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom