<p>Anna Wintour, the legendary editor-in-chief of American Vogue announced on Thursday (June 26) that she would step aside from the role, which she held for 37 years. After nearly four decades at the helm, shaping not only the fashion magazine but the global cultural industry, Wintour will remain the parent company Condé Nast’s global chief content officer and Vogue’s global editorial director. It might sound like a cliche, but it's indeed the end of an era. Wintour, 75, is the recipient of honours, criticism, scorn and fear, and a cultural powerhouse whether you like her or not. Her time as the Vogue editor was dotted with controversies. Here are some of them:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When the printer called to know if her first Vogue Cover was a mistake</h2><p>The November 1988 cover of Vogue, the first since Wintour took over as editor, caused quite a fashion storm. A model in jeans was featured on the cover page for the first time in the history of the magazine, which started publishing in 1892. The cover featured Michaela Bercu in a mix of high and low fashion: a $10,000 Christian Lacroix jacket paired with a cheap $50 Guess jeans. This shocked the industry, and changed Vogue's look forever. Legend has it that the magazine's printer called to check if it was a mistake.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/met-gala-2025-diljit-dosanjh-brings-regal-vibe-to-met-gala-carpet-9039773/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/met-gala-2025-diljit-dosanjh-brings-regal-vibe-to-met-gala-carpet-9039773/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When a former assistant wrote <i>The Devil Wears Prada, </i>and Wintour attended the film premiere</h2><p>In 2003, Lauren Weisberger, an ex-aide of Wintour, wrote the book <i>The Devil Wears Prada</i>, documenting her demanding leadership style without actually naming her. Instead of sullying her image, the book, and the 2006 Meryl Streep-starrer based on it, made Wintour more famous. She in fact became a cultural icon, labelled as the 'ice queen' after the release of the book and the film, whose premiere she herself attended.</p><h2>When she reinvented the Met Gala</h2><p>Once a local event of New York socialites, the Met Gala was transformed into a global fashion event since 1995 when Wintour took over as its chair. She had near-absolute creative control over the celebrity-led event, often called fashion's biggest night. She decided on the themes and guest lists. However, the Met Gala under Wintour was not without its controversies. In 2015, for instance, Wintour faced accusations of cultural appropriation for the theme, 'China Through the Looking Glass'.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When she faced allegations of racial stereotypes</h2><p>In April 2008, the Vogue cover paired basketball legend LeBron James with model Gisele Bündchen. Wintour was accused of racial stereotyping, as James was somehow made to pose like King Kong, the fictional gorilla. This was one of the many controversial editorial choices Wintour made.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When she got hate for her love of fur</h2><p>The 1990s saw the eruption of the anti-fur movement, with animal rights organisations like PETA slamming fashion that emerges from cruelty. Wintour always loved fur and was quite unabashed about it. In 1993, PETA held a protest at her office and even threw a dead raccoon on her plate when she was dining.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When she stuck to the decision to feature Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on Vogue cover</h2><p>In April 2014, Wintour was criticised for putting Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on the Vogue cover. Wintour stuck to her guns, saying the reality show star and rapper, who were a couple at the time, had cultural relevance.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When she issued a rare apology on diversity and race</h2><p>Amid the racial tensions after the death of African American George Floyd at the hands of US police, Wintour issued an apology to the Vogue staff. She acknowledged that the magazine failed to promote and give space to Black editors, writers, photographers, designers, and other creators.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>When long-term collaborator wrote a memoir against her</h2><p>André Leon Talley, who worked for years with Wintour, wrote the book <i>The Chiffon Trenches </i>in 2020, detailing her ruthlessness. It was a damning expose, describing what went inside the rooms at vogue and various fashion events associated with it, including Met Gala.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

It might sound like a cliche, but it is indeed the end of an era. Wintour, 75, is the recipient of honours, criticism, scorn and fear, and a cultural powerhouse whether you like her or not. Her time as the Vogue editor was dotted with controversies.

Anna Wintour, the legendary editor-in-chief of American Vogue announced on Thursday (June 26) that she would step aside from the role, which she held for 37 years. After nearly four decades at the helm, shaping not only the fashion magazine but the global cultural industry, Wintour will remain the parent company Condé Nast’s global chief content officer and Vogue’s global editorial director. It might sound like a cliche, but it's indeed the end of an era. Wintour, 75, is the recipient of honours, criticism, scorn and fear, and a cultural powerhouse whether you like her or not. Her time as the Vogue editor was dotted with controversies. Here are some of them: When the printer called to know if her first Vogue Cover was a mistake The November 1988 cover of Vogue, the first since Wintour took over as editor, caused quite a fashion storm. A model in jeans was featured on the cover page for the first time in the history of the magazine, which started publishing in 1892. The cover featured Michaela Bercu in a mix of high and low fashion: a $10,000 Christian Lacroix jacket paired with a cheap $50 Guess jeans. This shocked the industry, and changed Vogue's look forever. Legend has it that the magazine's printer called to check if it was a mistake. https://www.wionews.com/videos/met-gala-2025-diljit-dosanjh-brings-regal-vibe-to-met-gala-carpet-9039773/embed When a former assistant wrote The Devil Wears Prada, and Wintour attended the film premiere In 2003, Lauren Weisberger, an ex-aide of Wintour, wrote the book The Devil Wears Prada, documenting her demanding leadership style without actually naming her. Instead of sullying her image, the book, and the 2006 Meryl Streep-starrer based on it, made Wintour more famous. She in fact became a cultural icon, labelled as the 'ice queen' after the release of the book and the film, whose premiere she herself attended. When she reinvented the Met Gala Once a local event of New York socialites, the Met Gala was transformed into a global fashion event since 1995 when Wintour took over as its chair. She had near-absolute creative control over the celebrity-led event, often called fashion's biggest night. She decided on the themes and guest lists. However, the Met Gala under Wintour was not without its controversies. In 2015, for instance, Wintour faced accusations of cultural appropriation for the theme, 'China Through the Looking Glass'. When she faced allegations of racial stereotypes In April 2008, the Vogue cover paired basketball legend LeBron James with model Gisele Bündchen. Wintour was accused of racial stereotyping, as James was somehow made to pose like King Kong, the fictional gorilla. This was one of the many controversial editorial choices Wintour made. When she got hate for her love of fur The 1990s saw the eruption of the anti-fur movement, with animal rights organisations like PETA slamming fashion that emerges from cruelty. Wintour always loved fur and was quite unabashed about it. In 1993, PETA held a protest at her office and even threw a dead raccoon on her plate when she was dining. When she stuck to the decision to feature Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on Vogue cover In April 2014, Wintour was criticised for putting Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on the Vogue cover. Wintour stuck to her guns, saying the reality show star and rapper, who were a couple at the time, had cultural relevance. When she issued a rare apology on diversity and race Amid the racial tensions after the death of African American George Floyd at the hands of US police, Wintour issued an apology to the Vogue staff. She acknowledged that the magazine failed to promote and give space to Black editors, writers, photographers, designers, and other creators. When long-term collaborator wrote a memoir against her André Leon Talley, who worked for years with Wintour, wrote the book The Chiffon Trenches in 2020, detailing her ruthlessness. It was a damning expose, describing what went inside the rooms at vogue and various fashion events associated with it, including Met Gala.

<p>&nbsp;It might sound like a cliche, but it's indeed the end of an era. Wintour, 75, is the recipient of honours, criticism, scorn and fear, and a cultural powerhouse whether you like her or not. Her time as the Vogue editor was dotted with controversies. Here are some of them:</p>

Anna Wintour, the lioness in winter: Top fashion moments and controversies of icon stepping aside as Vogue editor-in-chief

<p>The spectre of the global nuclear black market is rising again in the wake of the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites by Israel and the US B2 bombers in the just-concluded 12-day war. Iran has benefited in the past from the nuclear black market led by the Pakistani AQ Khan network. Recent news reports and studies show that the nuclear black market is alive and thriving, both offline and on the dark web, and could become a source for future nuclear weapon programmes of countries, including possibly Iran.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Recent incidents show the nuclear black market is alive</h2><p>An article in the Harvard International Review in 2024 noted that there were 146 incidents involving the transfer of items related to illicit nuclear weapons development in 2021 alone. Illicit nuclear goods are becoming available to terrorist networks, with groups like Al-Qaeda expected to continue their attempts to acquire the bomb, it said.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It pointed out that the US and NATO store 20 B-61 gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. "In 2010, activists easily entered the compound and walked freely through the nuclear vaults for over an hour before security arrived. If an unarmed group can get inside a military compound, what will happen if a small army of dangerous actors knocks on the door?"</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The UN reported in 2023 that 2.3 tonnes of uranium went missing in Libya. In the hands with technical know-how, that could be turned into 12 pounds of weapons-grade material, the HIR article noted. The uranium barrels were later found in Chad.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Nuclear manuals sold on the dark web, material smuggled by ex-Soviet networks</h2><p>A study in March 2021 by Roderic G Broadhurst of Australian National University noted that DIY manuals were available on the darknet for nuclear and radiological weapons. In 2015, the Moldovan government said that the FBI had helped the former Soviet republic three times in the previous five years to thwart potential smuggling of nuclear and radioactive material. There were fears that the smugglers would try to sell the material to terrorists like ISIS.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In April 2009, three Ukrainians were arrested for trying to sell nuclear materials. They tried to sell a metal container of what they said contained some 3.7 kg of plutonium-239 for $10, according to the Ukrainian Security Service, the SBU.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In 2010, nuclear bomb material was found for sale on the Georgia black market. The highly enriched uranium had been smuggled through train inside lead-lined cigarette box.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>The global nuclear black market, explained</h2><p>The nuclear black market, where illicit trade of nuclear materials, technologies and expertise takes place, involves both states and non-state actors. There are three main participants: buyers, sellers and transit points. The aim of the buyers is to acquire nuclear capabilities outside the purview of international regulations.</p><h2>What is traded in the nuclear black market?</h2><p>Items and tech needed for nuclear weapons are sold in the black market, such as uranium enrichment technology like gas centrifuge components, and designs including digitised warhead blueprints. Fissile materials, like uranium hexafluoride and enriched uranium are highly coveted. Also on demand are dual-use equipment like high-precision machine tools, aluminium tubes and nuclear application software. Those with technical expertise are sought for consultancy on centrifuge assembly and warhead integration.</p><p>Various other pieces of the puzzle have been traded in the nuclear black market, such as infrastructure components like piping, electrical systems, and uranium feed/withdrawal equipment for enrichment facilities.</p><h2>State-linked entities are allegedly involved in the nuclear black market</h2><p>It has been reported in the past that state-affiliated entities in Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya, were allegedly involved in the nuclear black market as buyers or sellers. Chinese state-owned companies have been implicated in providing expertise and equipment to North Korea and Iran. Pakistan was once the centre of the AQ Khan network, of which Iran was a major recipient, specifically centrifuge designs and components. North Korea is both a seller and buyer in the global nuclear black market. It has done both arms exports and procurement through front companies. Libya had sought a centrifuge facility through the Khan’s network until it abandoned its nuclear programme in 2003. Syria is reported to have sought nuclear-related materials through intermediaries.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Intermediary countries</h2><p>Studies on the nuclear black market have named more than 20 countries as having been involved as transit points or places of intermediary activities. These include Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey, South Africa, Switzerland, South Korea, and the UAE. These countries were either transit hubs or supplier locations for components and expertise.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>AQ Khan network</h2><p>Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, led a proliferation network in the 1980s and 1990s, whose material and technology transfers went to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and other countries. The father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, Khan confessed publicly in 2004 to transferring nuclear technology to multiple countries. It was a sophisticated network of middlemen, front companies, academics, banks, businessmen and bureaucrats across Europe, West Asia, and Asia.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Iran was a big client of the nuclear black market</h2><p>Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons programme, the AMAD Project that ran from 1999–2003, is recorded to have procured warhead designs from the AQ Khan network and elsewhere in the nuclear black market. These included re-engineered Pakistani designs. In this period and subsequent years, Iran is thought to have sourced materials, equipment, technology, designs, and expertise from the global nuclear black market.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-s-nuclear-sites-wion-speaks-to-experts-on-israel-iran-war-escalation-1750687603061/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-s-nuclear-sites-wion-speaks-to-experts-on-israel-iran-war-escalation-1750687603061/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Centrifuge blueprints, components, and technical drawings it acquired from the black market were used to establish secret enrichment workshops, such as the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran. Uranium hexafluoride feedstock and equipment for Natanz were also bought in the black market, with centrifuge designs resembling those from Pakistan’s Kahuta facility, which again is based on stolen European technology.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>With its current nuclear capabilities bombed back by several months if not years, Iran might be tempted to dial the nuclear black market once again.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Recent news reports and studies show that the nuclear black market is alive and thriving, both offline and on the dark web, and could become a source for future nuclear weapon programmes of countries, including possibly Iran.

The spectre of the global nuclear black market is rising again in the wake of the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites by Israel and the US B2 bombers in the just-concluded 12-day war. Iran has benefited in the past from the nuclear black market led by the Pakistani AQ Khan network. Recent news reports and studies show that the nuclear black market is alive and thriving, both offline and on the dark web, and could become a source for future nuclear weapon programmes of countries, including possibly Iran. Recent incidents show the nuclear black market is alive An article in the Harvard International Review in 2024 noted that there were 146 incidents involving the transfer of items related to illicit nuclear weapons development in 2021 alone. Illicit nuclear goods are becoming available to terrorist networks, with groups like Al-Qaeda expected to continue their attempts to acquire the bomb, it said. It pointed out that the US and NATO store 20 B-61 gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. "In 2010, activists easily entered the compound and walked freely through the nuclear vaults for over an hour before security arrived. If an unarmed group can get inside a military compound, what will happen if a small army of dangerous actors knocks on the door?" The UN reported in 2023 that 2.3 tonnes of uranium went missing in Libya. In the hands with technical know-how, that could be turned into 12 pounds of weapons-grade material, the HIR article noted. The uranium barrels were later found in Chad. Nuclear manuals sold on the dark web, material smuggled by ex-Soviet networks A study in March 2021 by Roderic G Broadhurst of Australian National University noted that DIY manuals were available on the darknet for nuclear and radiological weapons. In 2015, the Moldovan government said that the FBI had helped the former Soviet republic three times in the previous five years to thwart potential smuggling of nuclear and radioactive material. There were fears that the smugglers would try to sell the material to terrorists like ISIS. In April 2009, three Ukrainians were arrested for trying to sell nuclear materials. They tried to sell a metal container of what they said contained some 3.7 kg of plutonium-239 for $10, according to the Ukrainian Security Service, the SBU. In 2010, nuclear bomb material was found for sale on the Georgia black market. The highly enriched uranium had been smuggled through train inside lead-lined cigarette box. The global nuclear black market, explained The nuclear black market, where illicit trade of nuclear materials, technologies and expertise takes place, involves both states and non-state actors. There are three main participants: buyers, sellers and transit points. The aim of the buyers is to acquire nuclear capabilities outside the purview of international regulations. What is traded in the nuclear black market? Items and tech needed for nuclear weapons are sold in the black market, such as uranium enrichment technology like gas centrifuge components, and designs including digitised warhead blueprints. Fissile materials, like uranium hexafluoride and enriched uranium are highly coveted. Also on demand are dual-use equipment like high-precision machine tools, aluminium tubes and nuclear application software. Those with technical expertise are sought for consultancy on centrifuge assembly and warhead integration. Various other pieces of the puzzle have been traded in the nuclear black market, such as infrastructure components like piping, electrical systems, and uranium feed/withdrawal equipment for enrichment facilities. State-linked entities are allegedly involved in the nuclear black market It has been reported in the past that state-affiliated entities in Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya, were allegedly involved in the nuclear black market as buyers or sellers. Chinese state-owned companies have been implicated in providing expertise and equipment to North Korea and Iran. Pakistan was once the centre of the AQ Khan network, of which Iran was a major recipient, specifically centrifuge designs and components. North Korea is both a seller and buyer in the global nuclear black market. It has done both arms exports and procurement through front companies. Libya had sought a centrifuge facility through the Khan’s network until it abandoned its nuclear programme in 2003. Syria is reported to have sought nuclear-related materials through intermediaries. Intermediary countries Studies on the nuclear black market have named more than 20 countries as having been involved as transit points or places of intermediary activities. These include Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey, South Africa, Switzerland, South Korea, and the UAE. These countries were either transit hubs or supplier locations for components and expertise. AQ Khan network Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, led a proliferation network in the 1980s and 1990s, whose material and technology transfers went to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and other countries. The father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, Khan confessed publicly in 2004 to transferring nuclear technology to multiple countries. It was a sophisticated network of middlemen, front companies, academics, banks, businessmen and bureaucrats across Europe, West Asia, and Asia. Iran was a big client of the nuclear black market Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons programme, the AMAD Project that ran from 1999–2003, is recorded to have procured warhead designs from the AQ Khan network and elsewhere in the nuclear black market. These included re-engineered Pakistani designs. In this period and subsequent years, Iran is thought to have sourced materials, equipment, technology, designs, and expertise from the global nuclear black market. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-s-nuclear-sites-wion-speaks-to-experts-on-israel-iran-war-escalation-1750687603061/embed Centrifuge blueprints, components, and technical drawings it acquired from the black market were used to establish secret enrichment workshops, such as the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran. Uranium hexafluoride feedstock and equipment for Natanz were also bought in the black market, with centrifuge designs resembling those from Pakistan’s Kahuta facility, which again is based on stolen European technology. With its current nuclear capabilities bombed back by several months if not years, Iran might be tempted to dial the nuclear black market once again.

<p>Recent news reports and studies show that the nuclear black market is alive and thriving, both offline and on the dark web, and could become a source for future nuclear weapon programmes of countries, including possibly Iran.</p>

Nuclear black market still exists, and Iran might dial again: Inside the murky trade of radioactive material, designs and tech

<p>There are claims and counterclaims on whether Irans' nuclear capabilities have been set back by years in the Israeli-US air strikes during the just-concluded 12-day war. The strikes targeted nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. But it has been reported that Iran has a secure stockpile of some 400 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, as well as other radioactive isotopes. This leads to the possibilty of Iran developing dirty nukes.&nbsp;<br>Iran has not yet developed dirty bombs, but certainly has the capability to do so, given its nuclear expertise, infrastructure, access to materials like uranium, spent fuel isotopes like cesium-137 and industrial isotopes like cobalt-60. How much risk is there of Iran producing a dirty nuke? Here is a down of its capabilities and materials.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>What are dirty nukes or radiological dispersal devices?</h2><p>In simplest terms, a dirty nuke is a conventional bomb with some nuclear components. Formally known as radiological dispersal devices (RDDs), these can potentially cause radioactive contamination on targeted areas, leading to health problems and environmental damage. Besides uranium, dirty nukes can use isotopes like cesium-137, cobalt-60 or nuclear reactor byproducts.</p><p>While they do not cause huge nuclear explosions, dirty bombs are considered 'weapons of mass disruption', mainly because of the potential psychological and economic impacts and adverse health effects.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Can Iran develop dirty nukes?</h2><p>Iran has always maintained it's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. But under the current circumstances, it does have the capability to develop dirty nuclear weapons. All ingredients are there: an advanced nuclear programme that enriched uranium to 60 per cent, availability of radioactive materials, and years of expertise in conventional explosives. Nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Bushehr, have been producing or handling radioactive materials that are, technically speaking, suitable for building RDDs. For instance, the uranium conversion plant and research reactors at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center could churn radioactive isotopes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/strait-of-hormuz-shows-supply-vulnerability-1750916285218/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/strait-of-hormuz-shows-supply-vulnerability-1750916285218/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In spite of Israel's attempts to kill of its nuclear scientists, Iran still possesses the knowledge base to handle radioactive materials. If it chooses to, it can use them in conventional explosives.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Byproducts of nuclear products like spent nuclear fuel from the Bushehr reactor and other isotopes from research reactors like the Tehran Research Reactor, could theoretically be used to build dirty bombs. (Bushehr spent fuel is supposed to be returned to Russia, as per the two nations' agreements.)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Current status of Iran nuclear material is vague</h2><p>Iran, which has dual-use capabilities, said it would partially stop cooperation with the inspectors from UN nuclear agency IAEA. There is talk on whether Iran would exit the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The 60 per cent enriched uranium, 400 kg of which Iran has reportedly moved to safe locations amid Israeli and American bombardment, can be used for building dirty bombs.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Which isotopes can Iran use to build radiological bombs?</h2><p>The 60 per cent enriched uranium isotope U-235 is highly radioactive. It can cause radiological contamination if used in a bomb. Uranium radiation is toxic, and can cause health troubles if inhaled or ingested. But making a bomb from the 60 per cent enriched uranium requires sophisticated design capabilities to maximise contamination. Also, it is less radioactive than cesium-137 or cobalt-60. These are the preferred isotopes for making dirty nukes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Will Iran actually use its 60 per cent enriched uranium in dirty nukes?</h2><p>Most probably not, due to the strategic value of this material. It took Iran decades to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, which is considered near-bomb grade. (Note that a nuclear weapon requires 90 per cent enriched uranium). So it is highly unlikely that Iran would waste this precious and limited resource in a dirty nuke.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>What else does Iran have that can be used in dirty nukes?</h2><p>Iran, however, still has some other nuclear meterials that could go into dirty nukes, though it is contract-bound to dispense with most of them. This include low-enriched uranium, cesium-137 (a common RDD candidate), strontium-90, and iodine-131 in Bushehr nuclear plant. Spent fuel from Bushehr is removed by Russia to avoid proliferation. Thus far, the IAEA has been monitoring Bushehr, but lack of future cooperation could pave the way for dirty nuke development.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Radioactive isotopes and byproducts are present in research reactors like Tehran Research Reactor as well as at facilities in Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center and Arak. These include uranium enriched up to 20 per cent, molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m. Other byproducts, such as cesium-137 or cobalt-60, could be extracted for an RDD. Iran might also possess Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) and the highly radio active plutonium-239.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Though it has the capability, there’s no indication that Iran has pursued dirty nukes. But the risk of such possibility has only increased after Iran's partial withdrawal from IAEA monitoring.<br><br>&nbsp;</p>

Iran has not yet developed dirty bombs, but certainly has the capability to do so, given its nuclear expertise, infrastructure, access to materials like uranium, spent fuel isotopes like cesium-137 and industrial isotopes like cobalt-60. How much risk is there of Iran producing a dirty nuke?

There are claims and counterclaims on whether Irans' nuclear capabilities have been set back by years in the Israeli-US air strikes during the just-concluded 12-day war. The strikes targeted nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. But it has been reported that Iran has a secure stockpile of some 400 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, as well as other radioactive isotopes. This leads to the possibilty of Iran developing dirty nukes. Iran has not yet developed dirty bombs, but certainly has the capability to do so, given its nuclear expertise, infrastructure, access to materials like uranium, spent fuel isotopes like cesium-137 and industrial isotopes like cobalt-60. How much risk is there of Iran producing a dirty nuke? Here is a down of its capabilities and materials. What are dirty nukes or radiological dispersal devices? In simplest terms, a dirty nuke is a conventional bomb with some nuclear components. Formally known as radiological dispersal devices (RDDs), these can potentially cause radioactive contamination on targeted areas, leading to health problems and environmental damage. Besides uranium, dirty nukes can use isotopes like cesium-137, cobalt-60 or nuclear reactor byproducts. While they do not cause huge nuclear explosions, dirty bombs are considered 'weapons of mass disruption', mainly because of the potential psychological and economic impacts and adverse health effects. Can Iran develop dirty nukes? Iran has always maintained it's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. But under the current circumstances, it does have the capability to develop dirty nuclear weapons. All ingredients are there: an advanced nuclear programme that enriched uranium to 60 per cent, availability of radioactive materials, and years of expertise in conventional explosives. Nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Bushehr, have been producing or handling radioactive materials that are, technically speaking, suitable for building RDDs. For instance, the uranium conversion plant and research reactors at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center could churn radioactive isotopes. https://www.wionews.com/videos/strait-of-hormuz-shows-supply-vulnerability-1750916285218/embed In spite of Israel's attempts to kill of its nuclear scientists, Iran still possesses the knowledge base to handle radioactive materials. If it chooses to, it can use them in conventional explosives. Byproducts of nuclear products like spent nuclear fuel from the Bushehr reactor and other isotopes from research reactors like the Tehran Research Reactor, could theoretically be used to build dirty bombs. (Bushehr spent fuel is supposed to be returned to Russia, as per the two nations' agreements.) Current status of Iran nuclear material is vague Iran, which has dual-use capabilities, said it would partially stop cooperation with the inspectors from UN nuclear agency IAEA. There is talk on whether Iran would exit the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The 60 per cent enriched uranium, 400 kg of which Iran has reportedly moved to safe locations amid Israeli and American bombardment, can be used for building dirty bombs. Which isotopes can Iran use to build radiological bombs? The 60 per cent enriched uranium isotope U-235 is highly radioactive. It can cause radiological contamination if used in a bomb. Uranium radiation is toxic, and can cause health troubles if inhaled or ingested. But making a bomb from the 60 per cent enriched uranium requires sophisticated design capabilities to maximise contamination. Also, it is less radioactive than cesium-137 or cobalt-60. These are the preferred isotopes for making dirty nukes. Will Iran actually use its 60 per cent enriched uranium in dirty nukes? Most probably not, due to the strategic value of this material. It took Iran decades to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, which is considered near-bomb grade. (Note that a nuclear weapon requires 90 per cent enriched uranium). So it is highly unlikely that Iran would waste this precious and limited resource in a dirty nuke. What else does Iran have that can be used in dirty nukes? Iran, however, still has some other nuclear meterials that could go into dirty nukes, though it is contract-bound to dispense with most of them. This include low-enriched uranium, cesium-137 (a common RDD candidate), strontium-90, and iodine-131 in Bushehr nuclear plant. Spent fuel from Bushehr is removed by Russia to avoid proliferation. Thus far, the IAEA has been monitoring Bushehr, but lack of future cooperation could pave the way for dirty nuke development. Radioactive isotopes and byproducts are present in research reactors like Tehran Research Reactor as well as at facilities in Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center and Arak. These include uranium enriched up to 20 per cent, molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m. Other byproducts, such as cesium-137 or cobalt-60, could be extracted for an RDD. Iran might also possess Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) and the highly radio active plutonium-239. Though it has the capability, there’s no indication that Iran has pursued dirty nukes. But the risk of such possibility has only increased after Iran's partial withdrawal from IAEA monitoring.

<p>Iran has not yet developed dirty bombs, but certainly has the capability to do so, given its nuclear expertise, infrastructure, access to materials like uranium, spent fuel isotopes like cesium-137 and industrial isotopes like cobalt-60. How much risk is there of Iran producing a dirty nuke?</p>

Dirty nukes: Can Iran make radiological bombs after Israel and US B2 bombers struck its nuclear sites during 12-day war?

<p><strong>Iran-Israel war - Ceasefire and future of Iranian nuclear programme: </strong>Remarks made by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, hinting that other countries can help Iran get a nuclear weapon, have ruffled quite a few feathers, with even US President Donald Trump slamming him. While Medvedev later clarified his remarks that he didn't mean Russia will give Iran the bomb, the reality is that Moscow is deeply entrenched in the Iranian nuclear programme. The Russian nuclear export industry is in fact one of the biggest in the world, helping several countries in their peaceful nuclear programmes. While Russia may not directly help Iran with the nuclear bomb, one must not forget Russia's deep involvement in the Iranian nuclear programme through personnel, material and knowledge transfer. Here is what you should know about the Russian nuclear industry, and how it has been helping Iran.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Russian nuclear industry is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise</h2><p>Led by state-run Rosatom, Russia is a top global player in the nuclear export industry. As of 2023, Rosatom made $11.8 billion in revenue. Nuclear material exports, reactor construction, fuel supply, and related services contributed to this. Globally, Russia controls nearly 38 per cent of uranium conversion and 46 per cent of uranium enrichment. This makes Russia a dominant supplier in the nuclear fuel cycle in the world.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nato-summit-2025-donald-trump-says-iran-nuclear-facility-collapsed-nobody-can-go-inside-1750853229936/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nato-summit-2025-donald-trump-says-iran-nuclear-facility-collapsed-nobody-can-go-inside-1750853229936/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Russian nuclear exports include a variety of services and materials: building nuclear power plants, supply of nuclear fuel, technical expertise and consulting. Russia has contracts with countries across continents.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Which countries' nuclear programmes has Russia helped?</h2><p>Russia's clients for mainly peaceful nuclear programmes include Iran, China, India, Turkey and Egypt. Much of this is in the nuclear power generation, such as Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, Egypt's El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, India's Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, China's Tianwan and Xudabao Nuclear Power Plants, Bangladesh's Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant, Hungary's Paks II Nuclear Power Plant and Belarus' Ostrovets Nuclear Power Plant.</p><p>Russia has nuclear tech and fuel supply agreements with Vietnam and Uzbekistan.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Russian civilian nuclear partnerships have raised dual-use concerns</h2><p>There are concerns that some of the dual-use material Russia has provided could cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The most significant currently is the case of Iran. Russia has, over the decades, extensively supported Iranian civilian nuclear infrastructure. From the Soviet Union era onwards, Russia has helped the nuclear programme of North Korea, though the cooperation currently is of limited scope. While Russia did discuss nuclear cooperation with Syria during the Assad regime, there are no active programmes, mainly due to international pressure.</p><p>While Russia maintains that its nuclear exports are for civilian purposes, how the technology transfers could be used for military capabilities is a cause of concern, something Moscow may not be able to control.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>From manpower to fuel to infra, Russia has deep links to the Iranian nuclear programme</h2><p>Hundreds of Russian specialists are working at Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. They are engineers and technicians from Rosatom, and come from prestigious institutions like the Kurchatov Institute. They are engaged in overseeing reactor operations and maintenance and have trained Iranians for years, enhancing the Islamic Republic's nuclear know-how. According to some recent estimates, there are some 300 Russian firms and research institutions involved in the Iranian nuclear programme.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>On the one hand, it gives employment to Russians in the nuclear sector, while on the other, it provides an additional workforce for the Iranian nuclear programme.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>How Russia is helping Iranian nuclear programme</h2><p>Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is the flagship entity in Iran's civil nuclear programme. Russia became the main contractor of the plant after the Germans, who started it, left the plant after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Russia helped build the first VVER-1000 reactor at Bushehr in 2011 and is helping the construction of two more reactors - Bushehr 2 and 3. In 2014, the two nations signed contracts for up to eight more reactors. Russia exports the nuclear fuel for Bushehr, monitored by the IAEA. Moscow has also conducted feasibility studies for additional reactors.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Beyond nuclear fuel, the main help Iran gets from Russia is in technology transfer: reactor design, operational protocols and training. There is worry among the international community, particularly Israel and the US, that Iran could use the Russian expertise for a nuclear weapon, specifically in uranium enrichment and fuel cycle technologies.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>The Medvedev remarks: Can countries other than Russia help Iran in building the bomb?</h2><p>As per official records, Russia has not provided bomb-grade enrichment technology directly to Iran. But over the years, Russia has helped in Iran’s nuclear research and uranium mining capabilities, things that could be used by Tehran in its alleged quest for the bomb.</p><p>It is in this context that Medvedev’s remarks should be seen. He said that “a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads”. His comments came after American B2 bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Was Medvedev making a threat?</h2><p>Observers think Medvedevs' remarks were mostly rhetoric. An assessment by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, for instance, said that direct transfer of nuclear warheads is not practical: it is technically complex and can be traced.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Note that nuclear weapons require specialised delivery systems and maintenance. Fissile material forensics can trace back any such transfers, including from Russia, if it indeed supplies nuclear warheads to Iran. Any such move by Russia will lead to global retaliation, particularly from the US, and will be violative of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>For the civil nuclear programme, Russia will continue to be a key helper for Iran</h2><p>In all likelihood, the Russian cooperation with Iran in its civilian nuclear programme will continue, partly due to the revenue and employment aspects mentioned earlier.</p><p>Russia’s foreign ministry has already condemned the Israeli and American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as violating international law. Russia vowed it will continue cooperating with Iran for a peaceful nuclear programme, including ongoing work at Bushehr. It might also include support for new enrichment facilities, given that Iran said after the strikes that it plans to install advanced centrifuges.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>What's Russia’s motivation to continue help in Iran's nuclear programme?</h2><p>Much of it has to do with global power play. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, wants to continue countering US dominance, and keep its influence alive in the West Asian region. Nuclear energy contracts are lucrative, and a key aspect of the Russian economy.</p><p>Therefore, Russia will most likely continue giving Iran fuel, technical expertise, and infrastructure support, ostensibly for the civilian nuclear programme, which might contain dual-use material that can be leveraged by Iran for the bomb.&nbsp;</p>

While Russia may not directly help Iran with the nuclear bomb, one must not forget Russian involvement in the Iranian nuclear programme through fuel, personnel, and knowledge transfers



Iran-Israel war - Ceasefire and future of Iranian nuclear programme: Remarks made by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, hinting that other countries can help Iran get a nuclear weapon, have ruffled quite a few feathers, with even US President Donald Trump slamming him. While Medvedev later clarified his remarks that he didn't mean Russia will give Iran the bomb, the reality is that Moscow is deeply entrenched in the Iranian nuclear programme. The Russian nuclear export industry is in fact one of the biggest in the world, helping several countries in their peaceful nuclear programmes. While Russia may not directly help Iran with the nuclear bomb, one must not forget Russia's deep involvement in the Iranian nuclear programme through personnel, material and knowledge transfer. Here is what you should know about the Russian nuclear industry, and how it has been helping Iran. Russian nuclear industry is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise Led by state-run Rosatom, Russia is a top global player in the nuclear export industry. As of 2023, Rosatom made $11.8 billion in revenue. Nuclear material exports, reactor construction, fuel supply, and related services contributed to this. Globally, Russia controls nearly 38 per cent of uranium conversion and 46 per cent of uranium enrichment. This makes Russia a dominant supplier in the nuclear fuel cycle in the world. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nato-summit-2025-donald-trump-says-iran-nuclear-facility-collapsed-nobody-can-go-inside-1750853229936/embed Russian nuclear exports include a variety of services and materials: building nuclear power plants, supply of nuclear fuel, technical expertise and consulting. Russia has contracts with countries across continents. Which countries' nuclear programmes has Russia helped? Russia's clients for mainly peaceful nuclear programmes include Iran, China, India, Turkey and Egypt. Much of this is in the nuclear power generation, such as Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, Egypt's El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, India's Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, China's Tianwan and Xudabao Nuclear Power Plants, Bangladesh's Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant, Hungary's Paks II Nuclear Power Plant and Belarus' Ostrovets Nuclear Power Plant. Russia has nuclear tech and fuel supply agreements with Vietnam and Uzbekistan. Russian civilian nuclear partnerships have raised dual-use concerns There are concerns that some of the dual-use material Russia has provided could cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The most significant currently is the case of Iran. Russia has, over the decades, extensively supported Iranian civilian nuclear infrastructure. From the Soviet Union era onwards, Russia has helped the nuclear programme of North Korea, though the cooperation currently is of limited scope. While Russia did discuss nuclear cooperation with Syria during the Assad regime, there are no active programmes, mainly due to international pressure. While Russia maintains that its nuclear exports are for civilian purposes, how the technology transfers could be used for military capabilities is a cause of concern, something Moscow may not be able to control. From manpower to fuel to infra, Russia has deep links to the Iranian nuclear programme Hundreds of Russian specialists are working at Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. They are engineers and technicians from Rosatom, and come from prestigious institutions like the Kurchatov Institute. They are engaged in overseeing reactor operations and maintenance and have trained Iranians for years, enhancing the Islamic Republic's nuclear know-how. According to some recent estimates, there are some 300 Russian firms and research institutions involved in the Iranian nuclear programme. On the one hand, it gives employment to Russians in the nuclear sector, while on the other, it provides an additional workforce for the Iranian nuclear programme. How Russia is helping Iranian nuclear programme Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is the flagship entity in Iran's civil nuclear programme. Russia became the main contractor of the plant after the Germans, who started it, left the plant after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Russia helped build the first VVER-1000 reactor at Bushehr in 2011 and is helping the construction of two more reactors - Bushehr 2 and 3. In 2014, the two nations signed contracts for up to eight more reactors. Russia exports the nuclear fuel for Bushehr, monitored by the IAEA. Moscow has also conducted feasibility studies for additional reactors. Beyond nuclear fuel, the main help Iran gets from Russia is in technology transfer: reactor design, operational protocols and training. There is worry among the international community, particularly Israel and the US, that Iran could use the Russian expertise for a nuclear weapon, specifically in uranium enrichment and fuel cycle technologies. The Medvedev remarks: Can countries other than Russia help Iran in building the bomb? As per official records, Russia has not provided bomb-grade enrichment technology directly to Iran. But over the years, Russia has helped in Iran’s nuclear research and uranium mining capabilities, things that could be used by Tehran in its alleged quest for the bomb. It is in this context that Medvedev’s remarks should be seen. He said that “a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads”. His comments came after American B2 bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Was Medvedev making a threat? Observers think Medvedevs' remarks were mostly rhetoric. An assessment by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, for instance, said that direct transfer of nuclear warheads is not practical: it is technically complex and can be traced. Note that nuclear weapons require specialised delivery systems and maintenance. Fissile material forensics can trace back any such transfers, including from Russia, if it indeed supplies nuclear warheads to Iran. Any such move by Russia will lead to global retaliation, particularly from the US, and will be violative of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For the civil nuclear programme, Russia will continue to be a key helper for Iran In all likelihood, the Russian cooperation with Iran in its civilian nuclear programme will continue, partly due to the revenue and employment aspects mentioned earlier. Russia’s foreign ministry has already condemned the Israeli and American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as violating international law. Russia vowed it will continue cooperating with Iran for a peaceful nuclear programme, including ongoing work at Bushehr. It might also include support for new enrichment facilities, given that Iran said after the strikes that it plans to install advanced centrifuges. What's Russia’s motivation to continue help in Iran's nuclear programme? Much of it has to do with global power play. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, wants to continue countering US dominance, and keep its influence alive in the West Asian region. Nuclear energy contracts are lucrative, and a key aspect of the Russian economy. Therefore, Russia will most likely continue giving Iran fuel, technical expertise, and infrastructure support, ostensibly for the civilian nuclear programme, which might contain dual-use material that can be leveraged by Iran for the bomb.

<p>While Russia may not directly help Iran with the nuclear bomb, one must not forget Russia's deep involvement in the Iranian nuclear programme through fuel, personnel, and knowledge transfer.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Will Russia help Iran rebuild nuclear programme hit hard by B2 bombers and Israeli strikes? Moscow is deeply involved in…

<p>In 2017, at the height of US-Iran tensions that led to talk of an American invasion of Iran and a possible regime change, Indian journalist Nadim Siraj travelled to the Islamic Republic. He went in as a tourist, but the intention was to see Iran up, close and personal. The result was a book titled <i>Secret Notes from Iran: Diary of an Undercover Journalist.</i> Nadim's trip happened during President Donald Trump's first term in office, in which he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. At the end of the current Iran-Israel war, Trump hinted that the US is not looking for an Iranian regime change. For many Iranians inside and abroad, the Iran-Israel war had brought the country tantalisingly close to a regime change. But that dream is dashed, for now. I asked Nadim why Trump took this stance, rather unusual for the US, which is known for artificial regime changes. He shared what could be the rationale for Trump, and what could have happened if a regime change had indeed happened.<br>&nbsp;</p><h2>Why would the Americans want to change regime in Iran?</h2><p>Part of the answer lies in a major, yet under-reported, grouse of the US : Iran’s defiance of the petrodollar, the system by which petroleum and gas resources are sold in exchange for US dollars. "Iran not only sells its crude oil in non-dollar currencies, it successfully runs an oil exchange – the Iranian Oil Bourse on Kish Island – where the US dollar is not even listed as a currency," Nadim said.<br><br>“Since the Iranian regime is at the forefront of a growing de-dollarisation drive, the US wants it to go – for vested economic interests, not to gift Iranians a more sane and liberal government with no nuclear ambitions.”&nbsp;<br><br>Trump has essentially gone against this long-standing US interest, at least for now. &nbsp;“Trump holding back prospects of a regime change turns out to be a sensible move,” Nadim shared.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Lack of regime change is a loss of opportunity for Iranian women</h2><p>During his Iran trip, Nadim found that a considerable section of the Iranian public deeply disliked the cleric-run regime, mainly because of its anti-women policies. “They are not just young women who miss basic freedoms, but even their young male peers. I saw the same wave across Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and along the Strait of Hormuz. For them, the freeze in a regime-change attempt is a golden opportunity lost,” he said.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-rejects-leaked-intel-reports-on-iran-s-nuclear-sites-1750844413937/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-rejects-leaked-intel-reports-on-iran-s-nuclear-sites-1750844413937/embed</a></p><p><br>Even though they don’t like the idea of a war, Nadim said, “they feel so stifled by the lack of basic rights that they don’t mind an external power doing the job of getting rid of the clerics and bringing a liberal group to power.”<br><br>“It is a shame that since coming to power in 1979, the Ayatollah’s ‘kingdom’ has continuously antagonised this section of the Iranian public,” Nadim said. “They will happily welcome the Shah’s family at the helm or a democracy-style political system.”</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>What would have happened if the Iranian regime was changed?</h2><p>Recent history may be a guide for answering this: Not a single US-supported regime change resulted in a positive outcome for the affected country’s society, economy, and politics. "Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are eye-opening examples, where US-backed interventions didn’t make the lives of the public any better," Nadim noted.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p><p>So, did Trump do the smart thing by declaring US is not interested in Iran regime change?</p><p><br>In Nadim's view, Trump’s decision to stop short of a regime change is a welcome relief for both Iran and the wider world, as it would have been unfortunate if a foreign power toppled its government without factoring in the heavy cost on the ground.</p><h2>A regime change would have split Iran and led to power vacuum and chaos</h2><p>Iran would have been thrown into the middle of a gigantic political and economic storm had there been a regime change, said Nadim.&nbsp;<br><br>"For decades, the Ayatollah’s oppressive regime has systematically ensured there’s no major naturally evolved, genuinely domestic political alternative in the country. &nbsp;So, if the clerics are ousted, a liberal yet completely US-backed puppet group would be installed in Tehran – accountable only to the West, not to the public.&nbsp;<br><br>“And because of its lack of accountability to the Iranian public, the externally installed government won’t be able to fix the economic chaos and political instability that will follow the regime change.”&nbsp;<br><br>A regime change would have caused severe economic turbulence in Iran, whose economy is reeling under pressure from over 3,000 sanctions slapped by the US and its allies. &nbsp;Hardened by decades of these sanctions, Iran built for itself a robust economy that doesn’t rely on foreign wealth or institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. That self-reliant, independent economy &nbsp;would have been severely damaged by a regime change.&nbsp;<br><br>Yet, when it comes to gender rights, a regime change would have come as an immense relief for Iranian women who are stifled by outdated patriarchal rules and regulations since they were rolled out in 1981, Nadim noted.</p>

Trump took a stance that is rather unusual for the US known for artificial regime changes. What could be the rationale and what could have happened if a regime change indeed took place?


In 2017, at the height of US-Iran tensions that led to talk of an American invasion of Iran and a possible regime change, Indian journalist Nadim Siraj travelled to the Islamic Republic. He went in as a tourist, but the intention was to see Iran up, close and personal. The result was a book titled Secret Notes from Iran: Diary of an Undercover Journalist. Nadim's trip happened during President Donald Trump's first term in office, in which he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. At the end of the current Iran-Israel war, Trump hinted that the US is not looking for an Iranian regime change. For many Iranians inside and abroad, the Iran-Israel war had brought the country tantalisingly close to a regime change. But that dream is dashed, for now. I asked Nadim why Trump took this stance, rather unusual for the US, which is known for artificial regime changes. He shared what could be the rationale for Trump, and what could have happened if a regime change had indeed happened. Why would the Americans want to change regime in Iran? Part of the answer lies in a major, yet under-reported, grouse of the US : Iran’s defiance of the petrodollar, the system by which petroleum and gas resources are sold in exchange for US dollars. "Iran not only sells its crude oil in non-dollar currencies, it successfully runs an oil exchange – the Iranian Oil Bourse on Kish Island – where the US dollar is not even listed as a currency," Nadim said. “Since the Iranian regime is at the forefront of a growing de-dollarisation drive, the US wants it to go – for vested economic interests, not to gift Iranians a more sane and liberal government with no nuclear ambitions.” Trump has essentially gone against this long-standing US interest, at least for now. “Trump holding back prospects of a regime change turns out to be a sensible move,” Nadim shared. Lack of regime change is a loss of opportunity for Iranian women During his Iran trip, Nadim found that a considerable section of the Iranian public deeply disliked the cleric-run regime, mainly because of its anti-women policies. “They are not just young women who miss basic freedoms, but even their young male peers. I saw the same wave across Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and along the Strait of Hormuz. For them, the freeze in a regime-change attempt is a golden opportunity lost,” he said. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-trump-rejects-leaked-intel-reports-on-iran-s-nuclear-sites-1750844413937/embed Even though they don’t like the idea of a war, Nadim said, “they feel so stifled by the lack of basic rights that they don’t mind an external power doing the job of getting rid of the clerics and bringing a liberal group to power.” “It is a shame that since coming to power in 1979, the Ayatollah’s ‘kingdom’ has continuously antagonised this section of the Iranian public,” Nadim said. “They will happily welcome the Shah’s family at the helm or a democracy-style political system.” What would have happened if the Iranian regime was changed? Recent history may be a guide for answering this: Not a single US-supported regime change resulted in a positive outcome for the affected country’s society, economy, and politics. "Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are eye-opening examples, where US-backed interventions didn’t make the lives of the public any better," Nadim noted. So, did Trump do the smart thing by declaring US is not interested in Iran regime change? In Nadim's view, Trump’s decision to stop short of a regime change is a welcome relief for both Iran and the wider world, as it would have been unfortunate if a foreign power toppled its government without factoring in the heavy cost on the ground. A regime change would have split Iran and led to power vacuum and chaos Iran would have been thrown into the middle of a gigantic political and economic storm had there been a regime change, said Nadim. "For decades, the Ayatollah’s oppressive regime has systematically ensured there’s no major naturally evolved, genuinely domestic political alternative in the country. So, if the clerics are ousted, a liberal yet completely US-backed puppet group would be installed in Tehran – accountable only to the West, not to the public. “And because of its lack of accountability to the Iranian public, the externally installed government won’t be able to fix the economic chaos and political instability that will follow the regime change.” A regime change would have caused severe economic turbulence in Iran, whose economy is reeling under pressure from over 3,000 sanctions slapped by the US and its allies. Hardened by decades of these sanctions, Iran built for itself a robust economy that doesn’t rely on foreign wealth or institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. That self-reliant, independent economy would have been severely damaged by a regime change. Yet, when it comes to gender rights, a regime change would have come as an immense relief for Iranian women who are stifled by outdated patriarchal rules and regulations since they were rolled out in 1981, Nadim noted.

<p>Trump took a stance that is rather unusual for the US known for artificial regime changes. What could be the rationale and what could have happened if a regime change indeed took place?<br>&nbsp;</p>

No regime change in Iran: Trump did the smart thing, but for many Iranians, specially women, it's a loss of historic opportunity

<p>At the end of 12 days of mutual aerial bombardment, Iran and Israel appear to have agreed on a ceasefire, brokered and announced by US President Donald Trump after American B2 bombers attacked suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The one-off US Operation Midnight Hammer looked very similar to Operation Sindoor, India's military action against Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attacks. India ended the operation just three days after bombings that targeted Pakistani terror infrastructure and hit near its suspected nuclear installations. Though military officials and political leadership described Operation Sindoor as ‘ongoing’, the hostilities have ended for now. The fact that what threatened to be long-drawn wars ended rather abruptly makes one wonder if we are in the era of quick-fix air wars, as opposed to long wars of attrition.</p><h2>Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion, Operation Midnight Hammer: Quick operations are better than wars of attrition</h2><p>As long as the military objectives are achieved, quick, targeted air operations are more practical. In the era of drones, long-range missiles and artificial intelligence, such operations avoid boots on the ground. Israel is already in a war of attrition with Hamas in the Gaza strip, which started after the terror attack of 7 October 2023. The military objectives of that war - defeating Hamas and releasing Israeli hostages it had taken in 2023 - have not been achieved despite more than two years of war. This is an asymmetrical war, as Hamas continues to fight the far better-equipped Israeli Army in spite of its leadership being wiped out in Mossad-led intelligence operations both inside Gaza and abroad.</p><h2>Ukraine-Russia war, US occupation of Afghanistan: Cautionary tales on how not to conduct warfare</h2><p>The Russia-Ukraine conflict is an instance of how long wars of attrition are not the order of the day in the present world. Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition.&nbsp;<br>Another example of the failure of a long and costly military mission is from Afghanistan. The US invaded it with the intention of removing the Taliban regime in October 2001. But after 20 years of occupation, the US Army left Afghanistan in a messy exit as the Taliban rode back to power in August 2021, with hardly any resistance.&nbsp;</p><h2>People are not interested in joining as foot soldiers for armies</h2><p>Something that stood out in the Russia-Ukraine war is how difficult it was for both sides to recruit foot soldiers. There have been reports of draft dodging by Russians. North Korean soldiers reportedly joined &nbsp;Russia in fighting Ukraine. Russia reportedly recruited soldiers from jails, meaning hardened criminals were sent to the frontline. There were difficulties in recruitment for the Ukrainian Army, too. Affiliate groups, militias and mercenaries from abroad are fighting alongside the regular Ukrainian forces.</p><h2>Drones and missiles: Future of warfare will have to be lean and smart</h2><p>The use of drones in all these wars is a new trend that is here to stay. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have become the face of wars in Ukraine, as well as in the Iran-Israel conflict and Operation Sindoor. Taking out enemies from the comfort of one's room or office is a much cheaper and effective method than sending the troops to the ground.</p><h2>Interest is growing on non-contact warfare</h2><p>The emerging new form of war consists of the following main aspects: Identify enemy targets using a combination of on-ground intelligence and satellite imagery; decide on the type of munitions and launchpads (Operation Midnight Hammer of the US, for instance, fired the torpedo missiles from submarines, while the B2 stealth bombers attacked from the air); use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemey's defence system, and exit without pilot casualties and minimum loss of hardware whenever possible. In Operation Sindoor, all Indian pilots were back home. In Iran's counterattacks, dozens of drones attempted to exhaust the Israeli air defence systems. Drones are seen as dispensable, as the cost involved in developing them would be less than the standing cost of armies.<br><br><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed</a></p><p><br>One thing is clear: Non-contact, air-dominated warfare is going to be a more prominent aspect of combat in future than the olden days of trench warfare and face-to-face combat. Whether it is India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, or Israel's Operation Rising Lion against Iran, Iran's counteroffensive, or Operation Midnight Hammer, the salient features remain the same: Air war, pinpointed targets, extensive planning, and use of unmanned vehicles.&nbsp;</p>

The new trend is to identify enemy targets, decide on the type of munitions and launchpads, use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemy defence system, and exit without casualties and minimal hardware loss.

At the end of 12 days of mutual aerial bombardment, Iran and Israel appear to have agreed on a ceasefire, brokered and announced by US President Donald Trump after American B2 bombers attacked suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The one-off US Operation Midnight Hammer looked very similar to Operation Sindoor, India's military action against Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attacks. India ended the operation just three days after bombings that targeted Pakistani terror infrastructure and hit near its suspected nuclear installations. Though military officials and political leadership described Operation Sindoor as ‘ongoing’, the hostilities have ended for now. The fact that what threatened to be long-drawn wars ended rather abruptly makes one wonder if we are in the era of quick-fix air wars, as opposed to long wars of attrition. Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion, Operation Midnight Hammer: Quick operations are better than wars of attrition As long as the military objectives are achieved, quick, targeted air operations are more practical. In the era of drones, long-range missiles and artificial intelligence, such operations avoid boots on the ground. Israel is already in a war of attrition with Hamas in the Gaza strip, which started after the terror attack of 7 October 2023. The military objectives of that war - defeating Hamas and releasing Israeli hostages it had taken in 2023 - have not been achieved despite more than two years of war. This is an asymmetrical war, as Hamas continues to fight the far better-equipped Israeli Army in spite of its leadership being wiped out in Mossad-led intelligence operations both inside Gaza and abroad. Ukraine-Russia war, US occupation of Afghanistan: Cautionary tales on how not to conduct warfare The Russia-Ukraine conflict is an instance of how long wars of attrition are not the order of the day in the present world. Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition. Another example of the failure of a long and costly military mission is from Afghanistan. The US invaded it with the intention of removing the Taliban regime in October 2001. But after 20 years of occupation, the US Army left Afghanistan in a messy exit as the Taliban rode back to power in August 2021, with hardly any resistance. People are not interested in joining as foot soldiers for armies Something that stood out in the Russia-Ukraine war is how difficult it was for both sides to recruit foot soldiers. There have been reports of draft dodging by Russians. North Korean soldiers reportedly joined Russia in fighting Ukraine. Russia reportedly recruited soldiers from jails, meaning hardened criminals were sent to the frontline. There were difficulties in recruitment for the Ukrainian Army, too. Affiliate groups, militias and mercenaries from abroad are fighting alongside the regular Ukrainian forces. Drones and missiles: Future of warfare will have to be lean and smart The use of drones in all these wars is a new trend that is here to stay. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have become the face of wars in Ukraine, as well as in the Iran-Israel conflict and Operation Sindoor. Taking out enemies from the comfort of one's room or office is a much cheaper and effective method than sending the troops to the ground. Interest is growing on non-contact warfare The emerging new form of war consists of the following main aspects: Identify enemy targets using a combination of on-ground intelligence and satellite imagery; decide on the type of munitions and launchpads (Operation Midnight Hammer of the US, for instance, fired the torpedo missiles from submarines, while the B2 stealth bombers attacked from the air); use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemey's defence system, and exit without pilot casualties and minimum loss of hardware whenever possible. In Operation Sindoor, all Indian pilots were back home. In Iran's counterattacks, dozens of drones attempted to exhaust the Israeli air defence systems. Drones are seen as dispensable, as the cost involved in developing them would be less than the standing cost of armies. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed One thing is clear: Non-contact, air-dominated warfare is going to be a more prominent aspect of combat in future than the olden days of trench warfare and face-to-face combat. Whether it is India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, or Israel's Operation Rising Lion against Iran, Iran's counteroffensive, or Operation Midnight Hammer, the salient features remain the same: Air war, pinpointed targets, extensive planning, and use of unmanned vehicles.

<p>Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p>

Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer: Are we in the era of quickfix air wars?

<p>P Diddy trial: Defence and prosecution have rested their cases in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of disgraced hip hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs that ran from May 12 to Tuesday (June 25), with the closing arguments and final verdict expected in the coming weeks. The hearings at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Courthouse in New York City before Indian-origin judge Arun Subramanian witnessed sordid details of decades of abuse, wild parties and reckless lifestyle of the man once known as Puff Daddy. He faces charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs has denied all charges. If convicted and sentenced, it will be yet another downfall of a major hip hop figure of the 21st century.&nbsp;</p><h2>P Diddy trial: what you should know</h2><p>The 55-year-old Combs is accused of using violence and threats against women to force them to take part in drug-fueled sex in parties labelled ‘freakouts’ and ‘kings nights’ for over 20 years. The defence lawyers, who called no witnesses, argued that the whole case is a misrepresentation of consensual relationships.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The prosecution rested after over 30 witnesses, while defence called no witness. Combs himself did not testify, but has denied the charges.&nbsp;</p><p><br>Closing arguments are scheduled for June 26–27, 2025, followed by jury deliberations. The final verdict is expected before the 4th of July holiday weekend.</p><h2>P Diddy trial recap: Who said what in the testimonies</h2><p>Here is how the trial unfolded, told through the key witnesses:<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Cassie Ventura,</strong> Combs’ former girlfriend, was the key prosecution witness. Testifying for four days, she described her decade-long abusive relationship with Combs. She alleged physical assaults, rapes, and coercion into sex with male escorts at drug-fueled parties called ‘freak-outs’. On the specific incident that underpins the case, she recalled how in 2016, Combs hit her at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. This was caught on security camera footage exhibited in the courtroom. Ventura also alleged Combs threatened to leak compromising videos of her.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sean-diddy-comb-sex-trafficking-trial-rappers-defense-team-faces-potential-shake-up-8752840/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sean-diddy-comb-sex-trafficking-trial-rappers-defense-team-faces-potential-shake-up-8752840/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Israel Florez</strong>, a security guard at the InterContinental Hotel in 2016, told the court that he saw Combs and Ventura in an elevator vestibule, and having noted Ventura’s "purple eye". Florez claimed Combs offered him a bribe that he rejected.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Eddy Garcia, </strong>a former security officer at the InterContinental Hotel, told the court of having accepted $100,000 from Combs for the CCTV footage of the 2016 incident and signing a non-disclosure agreement.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>David James,</strong> a former staffer of Combs, described how Combs allegedly groomed Cassie Ventura when she was young. James shared stories about ecstasy pills shaped like a former president’s face, and alleged that celebs like Us<strong>her</strong> and <strong>Jimmy Iovine</strong> saw Combs abusing Ventura, but did nothing.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>George Kaplan,</strong> another ex-employee, said he had arranged for hotel rooms for Combs under different names, like &nbsp;Frank Black, and after parties, cleaned up liquor bottles, baby oil, and what he called ‘brown crystallised powder’ from the rooms, an allusion to drug use. He also claimed to have procured drugs like MDMA for Combs.&nbsp;</p><p><br><strong>Kid Cudi (Scott Mescudi), who had a brief affair with Ventura,&nbsp;</strong> claimed that Combs broke into his home and arranged a firebombing of his car, after learning about his relationship with Ventura.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Mylah Morales</strong>, a makeup artist who met Ventura at a photoshoot when the latter was 16, &nbsp;gave an account of Combs’ abuse towards Ventura, which she had witnessed.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Capricorn Clark,</strong> another ex-employee, recounted Combs allegedly kicking Ventura in 2011 as punishment for her relationship with Kid Cudi, and how Combs waved a gun during an argument.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Mia (pseudonym), </strong>a friend of Ventura and Combs' former assistant, alleged physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by Combs, including an assault at his 40th birthday party. The defence challenged her credibility.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Bryana Bongolan,</strong> a friend of Ventura, recalled physical abuse and threats meted out to Ventura by Combs. Bongolan recalled how Combs allegedly held Ventura over a 17th-floor balcony in 2016, and threw a knife at her.<br><br><strong>Jane (pseudonym)</strong>, another accuser of Combs, recollected their relationship from 2021 to 2024. She alleged Combs forced her into ‘hotel nights’ involving sex with other men, described as part of a cuckold lifestyle. She recounted how in 2024, Combs threw water at her and called her names for saying she was tired.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Brendan Paul,</strong> another ex-aide, described having set up “wild king nights”. He claimed &nbsp;Jane was a willing participant in these events.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Jonathan Perez, </strong>an ex-assistant of Combs from 2021 to 2024, described organising &nbsp;“king nights” for Combs with baby oil, alcohol, and drugs. He described Combs carrying a Gucci pouch containing ketamine, molly and Adderall.&nbsp;<br><br><strong>DeLeassa Penland</strong>, a US special agent, said Combs arranged travel for an escort in 2009, boosting the prostitution charge against him.&nbsp;<br><br><strong>Joseph Cerciello,</strong> a Homeland Security Investigations agent, provided a 20-minute “freak-off” video among other exhibits, thus concluding the prosecution’s case.</p>

The 55-year-old Combs is accused of using violence and threats against women to force them to take part in drug-fueled sex in parties labelled freakouts and king nights for over 20 years

P Diddy trial: Defence and prosecution have rested their cases in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of disgraced hip hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs that ran from May 12 to Tuesday (June 25), with the closing arguments and final verdict expected in the coming weeks. The hearings at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Courthouse in New York City before Indian-origin judge Arun Subramanian witnessed sordid details of decades of abuse, wild parties and reckless lifestyle of the man once known as Puff Daddy. He faces charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs has denied all charges. If convicted and sentenced, it will be yet another downfall of a major hip hop figure of the 21st century. P Diddy trial: what you should know The 55-year-old Combs is accused of using violence and threats against women to force them to take part in drug-fueled sex in parties labelled ‘freakouts’ and ‘kings nights’ for over 20 years. The defence lawyers, who called no witnesses, argued that the whole case is a misrepresentation of consensual relationships. The prosecution rested after over 30 witnesses, while defence called no witness. Combs himself did not testify, but has denied the charges. Closing arguments are scheduled for June 26–27, 2025, followed by jury deliberations. The final verdict is expected before the 4th of July holiday weekend. P Diddy trial recap: Who said what in the testimonies Here is how the trial unfolded, told through the key witnesses: Cassie Ventura, Combs’ former girlfriend, was the key prosecution witness. Testifying for four days, she described her decade-long abusive relationship with Combs. She alleged physical assaults, rapes, and coercion into sex with male escorts at drug-fueled parties called ‘freak-outs’. On the specific incident that underpins the case, she recalled how in 2016, Combs hit her at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. This was caught on security camera footage exhibited in the courtroom. Ventura also alleged Combs threatened to leak compromising videos of her. https://www.wionews.com/videos/sean-diddy-comb-sex-trafficking-trial-rappers-defense-team-faces-potential-shake-up-8752840/embed Israel Florez, a security guard at the InterContinental Hotel in 2016, told the court that he saw Combs and Ventura in an elevator vestibule, and having noted Ventura’s "purple eye". Florez claimed Combs offered him a bribe that he rejected. Eddy Garcia, a former security officer at the InterContinental Hotel, told the court of having accepted $100,000 from Combs for the CCTV footage of the 2016 incident and signing a non-disclosure agreement. David James, a former staffer of Combs, described how Combs allegedly groomed Cassie Ventura when she was young. James shared stories about ecstasy pills shaped like a former president’s face, and alleged that celebs like Usher and Jimmy Iovine saw Combs abusing Ventura, but did nothing. George Kaplan, another ex-employee, said he had arranged for hotel rooms for Combs under different names, like Frank Black, and after parties, cleaned up liquor bottles, baby oil, and what he called ‘brown crystallised powder’ from the rooms, an allusion to drug use. He also claimed to have procured drugs like MDMA for Combs. Kid Cudi (Scott Mescudi), who had a brief affair with Ventura, claimed that Combs broke into his home and arranged a firebombing of his car, after learning about his relationship with Ventura. Mylah Morales, a makeup artist who met Ventura at a photoshoot when the latter was 16, gave an account of Combs’ abuse towards Ventura, which she had witnessed. Capricorn Clark, another ex-employee, recounted Combs allegedly kicking Ventura in 2011 as punishment for her relationship with Kid Cudi, and how Combs waved a gun during an argument. Mia (pseudonym), a friend of Ventura and Combs' former assistant, alleged physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by Combs, including an assault at his 40th birthday party. The defence challenged her credibility. Bryana Bongolan, a friend of Ventura, recalled physical abuse and threats meted out to Ventura by Combs. Bongolan recalled how Combs allegedly held Ventura over a 17th-floor balcony in 2016, and threw a knife at her. Jane (pseudonym), another accuser of Combs, recollected their relationship from 2021 to 2024. She alleged Combs forced her into ‘hotel nights’ involving sex with other men, described as part of a cuckold lifestyle. She recounted how in 2024, Combs threw water at her and called her names for saying she was tired. Brendan Paul, another ex-aide, described having set up “wild king nights”. He claimed Jane was a willing participant in these events. Jonathan Perez, an ex-assistant of Combs from 2021 to 2024, described organising “king nights” for Combs with baby oil, alcohol, and drugs. He described Combs carrying a Gucci pouch containing ketamine, molly and Adderall. DeLeassa Penland, a US special agent, said Combs arranged travel for an escort in 2009, boosting the prostitution charge against him. Joseph Cerciello, a Homeland Security Investigations agent, provided a 20-minute “freak-off” video among other exhibits, thus concluding the prosecution’s case.

<p>The 55-year-old Combs is accused of using violence and threats against women to force them to take part in drug-fueled sex in parties labelled ‘freakouts’ and ‘king nights’ for over 20 years.&nbsp;</p>

Sex, drugs, hip hop and jail: P Diddy trial, who said what as defence, prosecution rest case | A total recap

<p>US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, 12 days into the escalation of the conflict that started on June 13 with Israeli attacks and follow-up US strikes with B2 bombers targeting Iranian nuclear sites. He warned both countries not to violate the truce, but within hours of his social media posts, Iran rained more missiles on Israel, which vowed to respond. Trump appears to have copied Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who ended the Operation Sindoor, India's military response to Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack, just three days after it started on May 10. At the time of writing this, the Israel-Iran ceasefire appears to be broken. Did Trump speak too soon? Is the war really over? Why did Trump announce the truce if ground reality hasn't changed? Let's break it down.</p><h2>How Modi and Trump differed in announcing the ceasefires</h2><p>Perhaps the most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved. That objective was to hit hard inside Pakistan's terror infrastructure. The new military doctrine announced by Modi after the end of Operation Sindoor also mentioned that there will be a strong response to any Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India in the future. He made it clear that India will not yield to any nuclear blackmail, with the Indian airstrikes having hit very near the suspected nuclear installations of Pakistan. Modi reasserted his earlier statement in the context of Ukraine-Russia war that this is not an era of war. But he also stressed that this is not an era of terrorism, either.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed</a></p><p><br>But in the case of Trump, there are some key differences. The US is, at best, a ‘third party’ in the war, having joined it in the form of a one-off military strike, the Operation Midnight Hammer, in which B2 bombers attacked some Iranian nuclear sites. However, questions remain on whether the military objectives of the war, either of the US or Israel, have been achieved, given that Iran appears to have moved the near-bomb grade uranium it had enriched up to 60 per cent. That remains a potential threat, as Iran can resume its nuclear programme, this time with an explicit intention of building a bomb.</p><h2>Trump may have spoken too soon, but why?</h2><p>One of the reasons why Trump was very quick to announce the ceasefire is domestic politics. Democrats, who were in tatters after the last presidential elections that saw Trump thunder back into power, have now got a rallying point in the form of US intervention in the Iran-Israel war. That is not good for Trump or his Republican Party, some leaders of which are also criticising the US president. Trump's popularity will be put to test in the mid-term elections next November. As a president who got elected for the second non-consecutive term on a promise of ‘no more stupid wars’, the Israel-Iran situation provided Trump with a tough choice. America had to enter the war in order to end it quickly. A long war of attrition was not on the agenda of Trump. But events unfolding on the ground threaten to drag the US into another long-drawn conflict.<br>&nbsp;</p><h2>Nobel Peace Prize hopes of Trump: A key motivator to end the war?</h2><p>It is interesting to note that Trump claimed credit, publicly and quite a few times, for the India-Pakistan ceasefire after Operation Sindoor, something India firmly rejected. He has been trying to end the Israel-Hamas war before it escalated into an Iran-Israel war. His efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war haven't been fruitful yet. But Pakistan, quite stupidly, endorsed a nomination for Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhere in his heart, Trump himself probably dreams of such an honour. In reality, despite his acerbic tongue, Trump has made some efforts to end wars. But the belligerents on both sides are frustrating his efforts, particularly in the Ukraine-Russia war.&nbsp;<br><br>With no more terms left (unless he manages to change the constitution), Trump is looking for a legacy. He probably wants to be known as the peacemaker president. In his first term, he made efforts to bring Israel and its traditional Arab rivals closer through the Abraham Accords. This term, he is trying hard to end American military involvement in foreign wars. But the traditional role of his nation as the global police, and the temptations from the military-industrial complex, are pulling strings elsewhere.&nbsp;<br><br>While Trump might have tried a touch-and-go type operation against Iran, peace seems to be distant, and at best uneasy. The US might have to bear the consequences of having sided with Israel in the war, the latest example being the attack by Iran on the American airbase in Qatar. In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved, and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.</p>

The most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved

US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, 12 days into the escalation of the conflict that started on June 13 with Israeli attacks and follow-up US strikes with B2 bombers targeting Iranian nuclear sites. He warned both countries not to violate the truce, but within hours of his social media posts, Iran rained more missiles on Israel, which vowed to respond. Trump appears to have copied Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who ended the Operation Sindoor, India's military response to Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack, just three days after it started on May 10. At the time of writing this, the Israel-Iran ceasefire appears to be broken. Did Trump speak too soon? Is the war really over? Why did Trump announce the truce if ground reality hasn't changed? Let's break it down. How Modi and Trump differed in announcing the ceasefires Perhaps the most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved. That objective was to hit hard inside Pakistan's terror infrastructure. The new military doctrine announced by Modi after the end of Operation Sindoor also mentioned that there will be a strong response to any Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India in the future. He made it clear that India will not yield to any nuclear blackmail, with the Indian airstrikes having hit very near the suspected nuclear installations of Pakistan. Modi reasserted his earlier statement in the context of Ukraine-Russia war that this is not an era of war. But he also stressed that this is not an era of terrorism, either. https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed But in the case of Trump, there are some key differences. The US is, at best, a ‘third party’ in the war, having joined it in the form of a one-off military strike, the Operation Midnight Hammer, in which B2 bombers attacked some Iranian nuclear sites. However, questions remain on whether the military objectives of the war, either of the US or Israel, have been achieved, given that Iran appears to have moved the near-bomb grade uranium it had enriched up to 60 per cent. That remains a potential threat, as Iran can resume its nuclear programme, this time with an explicit intention of building a bomb. Trump may have spoken too soon, but why? One of the reasons why Trump was very quick to announce the ceasefire is domestic politics. Democrats, who were in tatters after the last presidential elections that saw Trump thunder back into power, have now got a rallying point in the form of US intervention in the Iran-Israel war. That is not good for Trump or his Republican Party, some leaders of which are also criticising the US president. Trump's popularity will be put to test in the mid-term elections next November. As a president who got elected for the second non-consecutive term on a promise of ‘no more stupid wars’, the Israel-Iran situation provided Trump with a tough choice. America had to enter the war in order to end it quickly. A long war of attrition was not on the agenda of Trump. But events unfolding on the ground threaten to drag the US into another long-drawn conflict. Nobel Peace Prize hopes of Trump: A key motivator to end the war? It is interesting to note that Trump claimed credit, publicly and quite a few times, for the India-Pakistan ceasefire after Operation Sindoor, something India firmly rejected. He has been trying to end the Israel-Hamas war before it escalated into an Iran-Israel war. His efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war haven't been fruitful yet. But Pakistan, quite stupidly, endorsed a nomination for Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhere in his heart, Trump himself probably dreams of such an honour. In reality, despite his acerbic tongue, Trump has made some efforts to end wars. But the belligerents on both sides are frustrating his efforts, particularly in the Ukraine-Russia war. With no more terms left (unless he manages to change the constitution), Trump is looking for a legacy. He probably wants to be known as the peacemaker president. In his first term, he made efforts to bring Israel and its traditional Arab rivals closer through the Abraham Accords. This term, he is trying hard to end American military involvement in foreign wars. But the traditional role of his nation as the global police, and the temptations from the military-industrial complex, are pulling strings elsewhere. While Trump might have tried a touch-and-go type operation against Iran, peace seems to be distant, and at best uneasy. The US might have to bear the consequences of having sided with Israel in the war, the latest example being the attack by Iran on the American airbase in Qatar. In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved, and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.

<p>In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.</p>

Trump, dreaming of Nobel Peace Prize, may have copied Modi to end Iran-Israel war quickly, but did he speak too soon?

<p>Iran launched a missile attack on a US air base in Qatar on Monday night (June 24), just hours before President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Tehran and Israel. The Iranian attack, in response to the bombardment of its nuclear facilities by Israel and the US, suddenly threw the small nation of Qatar into focus. The constitutional monarchy with a large Indian population, Qatar, reportedly played a role in bringing about the latest ceasefire. However, it's nothing new for the Arab nation, which has been a regional peace broker for years now. Here is what you should know about Qatar, and why it has such significant influence in the region, far above its size.</p><h2>Where is Qatar?</h2><p>Qatar is a small country in West Asia on the northeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. Located in the Qatar Peninsula, Qatar's only land border is with Saudi Arabia, the larger nation which held influence over its tiny neighbour till much of 20th century before relations soured. Qatar is only 11,571 square kilometres in size, slightly less than the US state of Connecticut. Sandwiched between the arid Arab desert and a shoreline of beaches and dunes, Qatar is a country rich in resources, particularly natural gas.<br>In terms of per capita income, Qatar is often listed among the wealthiest countries. It is one of the biggest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG).</p><h2>88 per cent of people in Qatar are foreigners, most from India</h2><p>Qatar, a Sunni-majority nation, has a population of just over 3.1 million, much smaller compared to the largest in the region, Saudi Arabia, which has 36 million people. Nearly 88 per cent of the Qatari population is of foreign origin. Indians are the largest expat population, comprising of nearly 22 per cent of the foreigners. There are some 830,000 Indians, working as doctors, engineers, teachers, businesspeople and blue-collar workers.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-launches-annunciation-of-victory-operation-iran-strikes-us-al-udeid-air-base-in-qatar-1750740709101/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-launches-annunciation-of-victory-operation-iran-strikes-us-al-udeid-air-base-in-qatar-1750740709101/embed</a></p><h2>How Qatar's influence grew as a mediator in conflicts</h2><p>Qatar had an important, albeit understated, role in global affairs since the late 20th century under former emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. Qatar had close relations with the US, which built the Al Udeid Air Base in the Arab country in 1996. The base, attacked by Iran on Monday (June 24), is the forward headquarters for US Central Command or CENTCOM, which directs American military operations in the region that includes Egypt in the west to Kazakhstan in the east.&nbsp;<br><br>Under the current emir, Sheikh Tamim ibn Hamad Al Thani, who assumed the throne in 2013, Qatar emerged as a key nation for mediating global conflicts. In the past two decades, Qatar has mediated in, or hosted mediations of, several high-profile wars. These include the long-standing US-Taliban conflict that ended in the American troop exit from the South Asian nation after the Taliban takeover in 2021.<br><br>Qatar was a key player in hostage and prisoner swap mediations between Ukraine and Russia in the ongoing war. Even before the 2023 October 7 terror attack that led to the Israel-Hamas war, Qatar has been mediating between the Jewish nation and the Palestinian militant organisation, which had its political headquarters in Doha, the Qatari capital. Qatar also mediated in releasing several of the Israeli hostages taken to Gaza by Hamas after the 2023 attack.<br>&nbsp;</p><p>Qatar was a mediator in conflicts and crises in Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq too.</p><h2>But, clout-building also had its cost for Qatar</h2><p>But exerting such outsized influence had its cost for Qatar, particularly in the form of diplomatic tussles and even a boycott by fellow Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia.<br><br>Qatar was influenced by Saudi Arabia till 1990s, which often treated it like a vassal state. &nbsp;But mediation in conflicts improved its global standing. It was also a strategy to protect the country from foreign interventions, particularly from larger neighbours Saudi and UAE.<br><br>This race for influence led to a crisis in 2017, when fellow Arab nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council announced a boycott of Qatar. That boycott, wherein Saudi, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, went on till 2021. Qatari aircraft and ships were blocked from the territory of these countries, and Saudi Arabia closed the only land border between the two nations. Many exports into the country from these neighbours were halted, including even essential goods.</p><h2>Al Jazeera network: A multiplier of Qatari influence that fell out of favour in the region</h2><p>The Al Jazeera TV network, founded in 1996 with funding from the state of Qatar, was one major step in the nation's path towards building its influence in the region and the world. Ten years later, it launched Al Jazeera English, which spoke to a global audience. Oddly enough, the channel, unlike the reality of Qatar as an absolute constitutional monarchy, became the voice of democracy in many countries in the region and outside. Of particular importance was how its journalism supported many anti-establishment movements during the Arab Spring of 2010-2012.&nbsp;<br><br>Qatar faced allegations of supporting what many in the region felt were US intelligence-supported, orchestrated regime changes. &nbsp;The diplomatic boycott was among the results of those tensions. Qatar was accused of interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, often using Al Jazeera as a tool to amplify its views. It was also criticised for maintaining relations with Iran, the Shia power of the region.<br><br>In Egypt, Qatar supported the elected government of Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the Arab Spring, but UAE backed the regime led by military leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. That became one of the immediate triggers for the diplomatic boycott.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The attack on the US air base hosted by Qatar is the first instance of Qatar directly coming under fire in a raging war in the region. It possibly reflects the reality that the nation may not be immune to future conflicts even if it has the military presence of the most powerful nation in the world.</p>

Exerting an outsized influence had its cost for Qatar, particularly in the form of diplomatic tussles and even a boycott by fellow Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia. Iran attack on the US air base hosted by it is the latest instance.

Iran launched a missile attack on a US air base in Qatar on Monday night (June 24), just hours before President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Tehran and Israel. The Iranian attack, in response to the bombardment of its nuclear facilities by Israel and the US, suddenly threw the small nation of Qatar into focus. The constitutional monarchy with a large Indian population, Qatar, reportedly played a role in bringing about the latest ceasefire. However, it's nothing new for the Arab nation, which has been a regional peace broker for years now. Here is what you should know about Qatar, and why it has such significant influence in the region, far above its size. Where is Qatar? Qatar is a small country in West Asia on the northeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. Located in the Qatar Peninsula, Qatar's only land border is with Saudi Arabia, the larger nation which held influence over its tiny neighbour till much of 20th century before relations soured. Qatar is only 11,571 square kilometres in size, slightly less than the US state of Connecticut. Sandwiched between the arid Arab desert and a shoreline of beaches and dunes, Qatar is a country rich in resources, particularly natural gas. In terms of per capita income, Qatar is often listed among the wealthiest countries. It is one of the biggest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG). 88 per cent of people in Qatar are foreigners, most from India Qatar, a Sunni-majority nation, has a population of just over 3.1 million, much smaller compared to the largest in the region, Saudi Arabia, which has 36 million people. Nearly 88 per cent of the Qatari population is of foreign origin. Indians are the largest expat population, comprising of nearly 22 per cent of the foreigners. There are some 830,000 Indians, working as doctors, engineers, teachers, businesspeople and blue-collar workers. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-launches-annunciation-of-victory-operation-iran-strikes-us-al-udeid-air-base-in-qatar-1750740709101/embed How Qatar's influence grew as a mediator in conflicts Qatar had an important, albeit understated, role in global affairs since the late 20th century under former emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. Qatar had close relations with the US, which built the Al Udeid Air Base in the Arab country in 1996. The base, attacked by Iran on Monday (June 24), is the forward headquarters for US Central Command or CENTCOM, which directs American military operations in the region that includes Egypt in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. Under the current emir, Sheikh Tamim ibn Hamad Al Thani, who assumed the throne in 2013, Qatar emerged as a key nation for mediating global conflicts. In the past two decades, Qatar has mediated in, or hosted mediations of, several high-profile wars. These include the long-standing US-Taliban conflict that ended in the American troop exit from the South Asian nation after the Taliban takeover in 2021. Qatar was a key player in hostage and prisoner swap mediations between Ukraine and Russia in the ongoing war. Even before the 2023 October 7 terror attack that led to the Israel-Hamas war, Qatar has been mediating between the Jewish nation and the Palestinian militant organisation, which had its political headquarters in Doha, the Qatari capital. Qatar also mediated in releasing several of the Israeli hostages taken to Gaza by Hamas after the 2023 attack. Qatar was a mediator in conflicts and crises in Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq too. But, clout-building also had its cost for Qatar But exerting such outsized influence had its cost for Qatar, particularly in the form of diplomatic tussles and even a boycott by fellow Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia. Qatar was influenced by Saudi Arabia till 1990s, which often treated it like a vassal state. But mediation in conflicts improved its global standing. It was also a strategy to protect the country from foreign interventions, particularly from larger neighbours Saudi and UAE. This race for influence led to a crisis in 2017, when fellow Arab nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council announced a boycott of Qatar. That boycott, wherein Saudi, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, went on till 2021. Qatari aircraft and ships were blocked from the territory of these countries, and Saudi Arabia closed the only land border between the two nations. Many exports into the country from these neighbours were halted, including even essential goods. Al Jazeera network: A multiplier of Qatari influence that fell out of favour in the region The Al Jazeera TV network, founded in 1996 with funding from the state of Qatar, was one major step in the nation's path towards building its influence in the region and the world. Ten years later, it launched Al Jazeera English, which spoke to a global audience. Oddly enough, the channel, unlike the reality of Qatar as an absolute constitutional monarchy, became the voice of democracy in many countries in the region and outside. Of particular importance was how its journalism supported many anti-establishment movements during the Arab Spring of 2010-2012. Qatar faced allegations of supporting what many in the region felt were US intelligence-supported, orchestrated regime changes. The diplomatic boycott was among the results of those tensions. Qatar was accused of interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, often using Al Jazeera as a tool to amplify its views. It was also criticised for maintaining relations with Iran, the Shia power of the region. In Egypt, Qatar supported the elected government of Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the Arab Spring, but UAE backed the regime led by military leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. That became one of the immediate triggers for the diplomatic boycott. The attack on the US air base hosted by Qatar is the first instance of Qatar directly coming under fire in a raging war in the region. It possibly reflects the reality that the nation may not be immune to future conflicts even if it has the military presence of the most powerful nation in the world.

<p>Qatar has been a regional peace broker for years now, but its clout is not well-liked by bigger neighours. The attack on the US air base hosted by Qatar is the first instance of Qatar directly coming under fire in a raging war in the region.</p>

Where is Qatar? How tiny Arab nation went from a clout builder to target of Iranian attack

<p>Abdul Qadeer Khan, Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, died of Covid in 2021. At the time of his death, he was a controversial figure, once a national hero of Pakistan who fell into disgrace after it emerged that he led a global proliferation network. That network was among key contributors to Iran's nuclear programme, currently under bombardment by Israel and the US amid an ongoing war. Here's the story of the Khan network.</p><h2>How AQ Khan proliferation network helped Iran nuclear programme</h2><p>The AQ Khan network's help to Iran's nuclear programme included helping the Islamic Republic build capabilities that could be used for nuclear weapons. &nbsp;Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the Pakistani metallurgist's clandestine proliferation network supplied Iran with critical nuclear technology as well as expertise.</p><h2>What did the AQ Khan Network give to Iran?</h2><p>It is believed that the AQ Khan network provided Iran with centrifuge technology and components. It included designs, components, and technical drawings for gas centrifuges, particularly P-1 and later P-2 models, used for enriching uranium. The designs were reportedly derived from those Khan had stole from from Dutch firm URENCO, when he was working in the Netherlands in the 1970s.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israel-strikes-iran-idf-targets-irgc-hq-basij-hq-ideological-hq-1750678884219/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israel-strikes-iran-idf-targets-irgc-hq-basij-hq-ideological-hq-1750678884219/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Iran got more than 2,000 centrifuge components and sub-assemblies, which helped build its secret pilot enrichment workshops in Kalaye Electrical Company, Tehran, among other places, in the 1989-1995 period.</p><p><br>The Pakistani technology transfer is corroborated by the fact that centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment site looked similar to those at Pakistan’s Kahuta facility.</p><h2>Khan network gave Iran uranium enrichment technical know-how</h2><p>Khan’s network also reportedly gave Iran technical know-how, including blueprints and specifications for uranium enrichment. It is thought to have assisted in setting up uranium hexafluoride gas processes for Iran, that are critical for producing highly enriched uranium. HEU is a prerequisite for developing nuclear weapons.</p><h2>Did Pakistan give initial designs for nuclear weapons to Iran?</h2><p>According to multiple reports, Iranian scientists were trained in Pakistan on nuclear enrichment technology in 1988. It has been reported also that the Khan network gave Iran some blueprints for a Chinese nuclear warhead design. These reports are, however, inconclusive.</p><p><br>But in 2018, when Israeli intel agency Mossad uncovered documents on the Amad Project, the secretive nuclear weapons programme of Iran in 1999–2003, it emerged that Pakistani designs may have been reworked in its warhead development.</p><p><br>It is believed that the AQ Khan network provided assistance to Iran for high-explosive tests, detonator development for implosion-type bombs in this period.</p><h2>How did AQ Khan network operate?</h2><p>Centrifuge components and other nuclear materials were sent to Iran via intermediaries in countries like Dubai and Malaysia. It had been widely reported that a Sri Lankan, &nbsp;BSA Tahir, helped transfer P-2 centrifuge components to Iran for $3 million. Iran's payments for such transfers, running into millions of dollars, were made through foreign bank accounts.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>After its 2003 inspections, the UN nuclear agency IAEA reported that Iran’s P-1 model centrifuges were obtained from a 'foreign intermediary', identified as Khan, in 1989.</p><h2>Khan helped Iran cut time for enrichment capabilities</h2><p>The aid from the Khan network - both technology and expertise - possibly helped Iran cut its nuclear development timeline by a decade. It gave Iran a headstart in uranium enrichment at scale, in sites like Natanz.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The Khan network was exposed in 2003, when Natanz facility - till then undeclared - was revealed. Iran agreed to name its suppliers, leading to global pressure on Pakistan, and the televised confession by AQ Khan in 2004 that led to his house arrest and eventual downfall from national hero to disgrace.</p><h2>Did Pakistani establishment help Khan in nuclear proliferation?</h2><p>In his confession and subsequent remarks, Khan said he acted own his own to sell nuclear technology to Iran as well as Libya, North Korea and possibly other countries. But at the time, allegations swirled that Pakistani officials such as Gen Mirza Aslam Beg either had approved, or were aware of, the Khan network's transfers to Iran.</p><p><br>In subsequent years, Khan had alleged he faced pressure from the then Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto's government, though these claims were rejected by officials.</p><p><br>Interestingly, Iran's cooperation with IAEA at the time, and revelation of details of Khan's involvement in it, were seen by some in Pakistan as a betrayal of Pakistan's ‘Muslim brotherhood’ gesture. The episode caused a strain in Iran-Pakistan relations at the time.</p><h2>Could Iran have developed a nuclear programme without Khan network's help?</h2><p>Quite possibly so, because the Iranian nuclear programme was receiving help from several other countries, most notably Russia and China. But the AQ Khan network gave it much-needed acceleration.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

The AQ Khan network helped Iranian nuclear programme by helping the Islamic Republic build capabilities that could possibly be used for nuclear weapons. 

Abdul Qadeer Khan, Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, died of Covid in 2021. At the time of his death, he was a controversial figure, once a national hero of Pakistan who fell into disgrace after it emerged that he led a global proliferation network. That network was among key contributors to Iran's nuclear programme, currently under bombardment by Israel and the US amid an ongoing war. Here's the story of the Khan network. How AQ Khan proliferation network helped Iran nuclear programme The AQ Khan network's help to Iran's nuclear programme included helping the Islamic Republic build capabilities that could be used for nuclear weapons. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the Pakistani metallurgist's clandestine proliferation network supplied Iran with critical nuclear technology as well as expertise. What did the AQ Khan Network give to Iran? It is believed that the AQ Khan network provided Iran with centrifuge technology and components. It included designs, components, and technical drawings for gas centrifuges, particularly P-1 and later P-2 models, used for enriching uranium. The designs were reportedly derived from those Khan had stole from from Dutch firm URENCO, when he was working in the Netherlands in the 1970s. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israel-strikes-iran-idf-targets-irgc-hq-basij-hq-ideological-hq-1750678884219/embed Iran got more than 2,000 centrifuge components and sub-assemblies, which helped build its secret pilot enrichment workshops in Kalaye Electrical Company, Tehran, among other places, in the 1989-1995 period. The Pakistani technology transfer is corroborated by the fact that centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment site looked similar to those at Pakistan’s Kahuta facility. Khan network gave Iran uranium enrichment technical know-how Khan’s network also reportedly gave Iran technical know-how, including blueprints and specifications for uranium enrichment. It is thought to have assisted in setting up uranium hexafluoride gas processes for Iran, that are critical for producing highly enriched uranium. HEU is a prerequisite for developing nuclear weapons. Did Pakistan give initial designs for nuclear weapons to Iran? According to multiple reports, Iranian scientists were trained in Pakistan on nuclear enrichment technology in 1988. It has been reported also that the Khan network gave Iran some blueprints for a Chinese nuclear warhead design. These reports are, however, inconclusive. But in 2018, when Israeli intel agency Mossad uncovered documents on the Amad Project, the secretive nuclear weapons programme of Iran in 1999–2003, it emerged that Pakistani designs may have been reworked in its warhead development. It is believed that the AQ Khan network provided assistance to Iran for high-explosive tests, detonator development for implosion-type bombs in this period. How did AQ Khan network operate? Centrifuge components and other nuclear materials were sent to Iran via intermediaries in countries like Dubai and Malaysia. It had been widely reported that a Sri Lankan, BSA Tahir, helped transfer P-2 centrifuge components to Iran for $3 million. Iran's payments for such transfers, running into millions of dollars, were made through foreign bank accounts. After its 2003 inspections, the UN nuclear agency IAEA reported that Iran’s P-1 model centrifuges were obtained from a 'foreign intermediary', identified as Khan, in 1989. Khan helped Iran cut time for enrichment capabilities The aid from the Khan network - both technology and expertise - possibly helped Iran cut its nuclear development timeline by a decade. It gave Iran a headstart in uranium enrichment at scale, in sites like Natanz. The Khan network was exposed in 2003, when Natanz facility - till then undeclared - was revealed. Iran agreed to name its suppliers, leading to global pressure on Pakistan, and the televised confession by AQ Khan in 2004 that led to his house arrest and eventual downfall from national hero to disgrace. Did Pakistani establishment help Khan in nuclear proliferation? In his confession and subsequent remarks, Khan said he acted own his own to sell nuclear technology to Iran as well as Libya, North Korea and possibly other countries. But at the time, allegations swirled that Pakistani officials such as Gen Mirza Aslam Beg either had approved, or were aware of, the Khan network's transfers to Iran. In subsequent years, Khan had alleged he faced pressure from the then Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto's government, though these claims were rejected by officials. Interestingly, Iran's cooperation with IAEA at the time, and revelation of details of Khan's involvement in it, were seen by some in Pakistan as a betrayal of Pakistan's ‘Muslim brotherhood’ gesture. The episode caused a strain in Iran-Pakistan relations at the time. Could Iran have developed a nuclear programme without Khan network's help? Quite possibly so, because the Iranian nuclear programme was receiving help from several other countries, most notably Russia and China. But the AQ Khan network gave it much-needed acceleration.

<p>The AQ Khan network's help to Iran's nuclear programme included helping the Islamic Republic build capabilities that could possibly be used for nuclear weapons.&nbsp;</p>

When Pakistani AQ Khan network helped Iran's atomic programme and possibly helped its quest for a nuclear weapon

<p><strong>Whereabouts of Iran's 60 per cent enriched uranium:</strong> Where is Iran's near-weapons grade uranium, enriched up to 60 per cent, close to the 90 per cent required to build nuclear bombs? This question is lingering a day after the US claimed to have struck key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday (June 22). Iran is thought to possess up to 400 kg of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent.<br>Conflicting reports are emerging on the status of this material, which could be dangerous, and could help Iran resume its programme when the dust settles. Here is what we know about the current status of Iranian nuclear material.</p><h2>Did trucks remove Iranian nuclear material?</h2><p>That would appear to be the case if one goes by some Western media reports. The Newsweek, for instance, reported on satellite images that allegedly showed trucks in motion in the areas attacked by the US, much ahead of the bombings. The report claimed that 16 cargo trucks were spotted near a road to the Fordow nuclear site's tunnel entrance on June 19, way before the US attacks. &nbsp;Citing the satellite imaging company Maxar, it said most of these trucks moved a kilometre northwest of the access road by June 20. The same day, new trucks and bulldozers appeared close to the main entrance. One truck, Maxar said, was very near the main tunnel entrance.</p><h2>Iran claims nuclear sites were evacuated, Israel has ‘interesting intel’</h2><p>The truck movement reports came amid Iranian claims that the nuclear material had been moved ahead of the US bombing. The state media reports claimed that the enriched uranium had been moved to a ‘safe location’.&nbsp;</p><p><br>Amid continuing speculation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that Israel has ‘interesting intel’ on the Iranian nuclear material. Israeli media outlets like the Times of Israel reported, citing Bibi, that Israel knows the ‘whereabouts of Iran’s 400 kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium’. He did not go into details.</p><h2>But wait, was the nuclear material not in Fordow?</h2><p>Fordow, the under-mountain site believed to host a uranium enrichment plant, was the main target of the US strike. Satellite images showed some holes after the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, formally known as Massive Ordnance Penetrators, hit the site.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But according to a New York Times report, the 60 per cent enriched uranium was not in Fordow. It was stored somewhere deep in the nuclear site of Isfahan. These are kept in small casks that can fit in trunks of around 10 cars, &nbsp;it said.</p><p><br><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-midnight-hammer-pentagon-calls-it-largest-b-2-operational-strike-in-u-s-history-1750659063331/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-midnight-hammer-pentagon-calls-it-largest-b-2-operational-strike-in-u-s-history-1750659063331/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>UN nuclear watchdog IAEAs' chief Rafael Grossi said on CNN on Sunday that “Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material.” And he answered in the affirmative when asked by NYT if the stockpile has been removed.</p><h2>US officials are still clueless about Iran's enriched uranium stockpile</h2><p>As per the NYT report, US officials have 'conceded' they do not know where Iran's nuclear stockpile is. The report noted that US Vice President JD Vance and IAEA's Grossi have both acknowledged this.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Vance told the news channel ABC that the US, in the coming weeks, will "do something with that fuel.<br><br>This contravenes US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's claims, amplifying Trump's remarks that the US bunker-busting bombs “completely and totally obliterated” Iranian nuclear programme.</p><h2>What did US really achieve with the Operation Midnight Hammer strike on Iran?</h2><p>So, was it ‘mission unaccomplished’ for the US, despite President Donald Trump's claims that the weekend strikes under Operation Midnight Hammer ‘obliterated’ the Iranian nuclear programme? &nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p><p>US and Israeli analysis is that the Fordow site was seriously damaged but not completely destroyed.</p><p><br>In fact, Hegseth, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, were not as hyperbolic as Trump. In remarks on Sunday, they said "severe damage and destruction" was caused by the US attacks that used B2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles targeting three nuclear sites, possibly in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.</p><h2>How dangerous is the 60 per cent enriched uranium with Iran?</h2><p>Technically, 60 per cent uranium is near-bomb grade, and can create up to 10 atomic weapons of some impact.</p><p><br>More than that, as noted in the NYT report, this stockpile could become a bargaining chip for Iran in future negotiations on its nuclear programme. Note that Iran has made it very clear that it will not agree to zero uranium enrichment.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And, with the threat of Iran exiting the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it might even free the country from obligations not to develop a nuclear weapon.</p>

The truck movement reports came amid Iranian claims that the nuclear material had been moved ahead of the US bombing. The state media reports claimed that the enriched uranium had been moved to a ‘safe location’. 

Whereabouts of Iran's 60 per cent enriched uranium: Where is Iran's near-weapons grade uranium, enriched up to 60 per cent, close to the 90 per cent required to build nuclear bombs? This question is lingering a day after the US claimed to have struck key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday (June 22). Iran is thought to possess up to 400 kg of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent. Conflicting reports are emerging on the status of this material, which could be dangerous, and could help Iran resume its programme when the dust settles. Here is what we know about the current status of Iranian nuclear material. Did trucks remove Iranian nuclear material? That would appear to be the case if one goes by some Western media reports. The Newsweek, for instance, reported on satellite images that allegedly showed trucks in motion in the areas attacked by the US, much ahead of the bombings. The report claimed that 16 cargo trucks were spotted near a road to the Fordow nuclear site's tunnel entrance on June 19, way before the US attacks. Citing the satellite imaging company Maxar, it said most of these trucks moved a kilometre northwest of the access road by June 20. The same day, new trucks and bulldozers appeared close to the main entrance. One truck, Maxar said, was very near the main tunnel entrance. Iran claims nuclear sites were evacuated, Israel has ‘interesting intel’ The truck movement reports came amid Iranian claims that the nuclear material had been moved ahead of the US bombing. The state media reports claimed that the enriched uranium had been moved to a ‘safe location’. Amid continuing speculation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that Israel has ‘interesting intel’ on the Iranian nuclear material. Israeli media outlets like the Times of Israel reported, citing Bibi, that Israel knows the ‘whereabouts of Iran’s 400 kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium’. He did not go into details. But wait, was the nuclear material not in Fordow? Fordow, the under-mountain site believed to host a uranium enrichment plant, was the main target of the US strike. Satellite images showed some holes after the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, formally known as Massive Ordnance Penetrators, hit the site. But according to a New York Times report, the 60 per cent enriched uranium was not in Fordow. It was stored somewhere deep in the nuclear site of Isfahan. These are kept in small casks that can fit in trunks of around 10 cars, it said. https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-midnight-hammer-pentagon-calls-it-largest-b-2-operational-strike-in-u-s-history-1750659063331/embed UN nuclear watchdog IAEAs' chief Rafael Grossi said on CNN on Sunday that “Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material.” And he answered in the affirmative when asked by NYT if the stockpile has been removed. US officials are still clueless about Iran's enriched uranium stockpile As per the NYT report, US officials have 'conceded' they do not know where Iran's nuclear stockpile is. The report noted that US Vice President JD Vance and IAEA's Grossi have both acknowledged this. Vance told the news channel ABC that the US, in the coming weeks, will "do something with that fuel. This contravenes US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's claims, amplifying Trump's remarks that the US bunker-busting bombs “completely and totally obliterated” Iranian nuclear programme. What did US really achieve with the Operation Midnight Hammer strike on Iran? So, was it ‘mission unaccomplished’ for the US, despite President Donald Trump's claims that the weekend strikes under Operation Midnight Hammer ‘obliterated’ the Iranian nuclear programme? US and Israeli analysis is that the Fordow site was seriously damaged but not completely destroyed. In fact, Hegseth, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, were not as hyperbolic as Trump. In remarks on Sunday, they said "severe damage and destruction" was caused by the US attacks that used B2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles targeting three nuclear sites, possibly in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. How dangerous is the 60 per cent enriched uranium with Iran? Technically, 60 per cent uranium is near-bomb grade, and can create up to 10 atomic weapons of some impact. More than that, as noted in the NYT report, this stockpile could become a bargaining chip for Iran in future negotiations on its nuclear programme. Note that Iran has made it very clear that it will not agree to zero uranium enrichment. And, with the threat of Iran exiting the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it might even free the country from obligations not to develop a nuclear weapon.

<p>Technically, 60 per cent uranium is near-bomb grade, and can create up to 10 atomic weapons of some impact.</p>

Where is Iran's near-bomb-grade uranium? Tehran says removed, Israel claims has ‘intel’, US clueless after bombing sites

<p>Iranian missiles have hit the city of Beersheba in the ongoing war with Israel, hitting its hospitals, buildings and other installations. Soroka Hospital was among the targets, and Israel vowed revenge for the attack. So, where is Beersheba? Why is it important, and why did Iran attack the hospital? Please note that Iran and Israel are separated by 1,000 miles of territory. So the only major way to attack is through the air, which is why Iran is raining missiles on Israel, in the wake of the Jewish nation's offensive on the Islamic Republic that started on June 13.</p><h2>Where is Beersheba?</h2><p>Beersheba is a prominent city located in southern Israel’s Negev Desert. It is nearly 70 miles south of Jerusalem and 25 miles east of the Gaza Strip, where Israel is locked in battle with the Palestinian militant group Hamas.<br><br>Known as the capital of the Negev, Beersheba is the administrative and economic hub of southern Israel. &nbsp;As it is not located near a border, Beersheba is safe from conventional cross-border attacks.But it can be reached by Iran's long-range ballistic missiles.<br><br><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-moves-closer-to-attacking-iran-1750397169331/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-moves-closer-to-attacking-iran-1750397169331/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Iran's attack on Soroka Hospital</h2><p>Several people were injured in Iran's missile attack on Beersheba's Soroka Medical Center on Thursday (June 19). Iran claimed that the barrage was targeted at a nearby military and intelligence headquarters.&nbsp;<br><br>The missiles, it appears, were meant for the Southern Command of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Gav-Yam Technology Park in the city. The Southern Command is believed to be located some two kilometres from Soroka Hospital.<br><br>The attack on the hospital injured dozens of people. Casualties at the Soroka Hospital were limited as patients were moved underground in time, according to reports, but the building was damaged and on fire.<br><br>Israeli leaders called the hospital attack by Iran a deliberate war crime.<br>&nbsp;</p><h2>Beersheba’s strategic importance</h2><p>The IDF's Southern Command headquarters is believed to be coordinating military operations in southern Israel from Beersheba. The city is near airbases like Hatzerim and Nevatim. These airbases are playing a crucial role in Israel's air defence and operations.&nbsp;<br><br>Beereheba also supports logistics and communication hubs. For all these reasons, Beersheba is strategically important, &nbsp;making it a high-value target Iran, in order to hit its military and civilian infrastructure.</p><h2>Is there a nuclear angle to Beersheba attack?</h2><p>Besides its role as a key urban centre hosting critical infrastructure, Beersheba is also located near Dimona. Some 20 miles away from Beersheba, Dimona hosts the nuclear research center of Israel. This adds to the strategic significance of Beersheba.<br><br>By attacking Beersheba, Iran is possibly sending a signal that it can come very close to, and possibly attack, Israel's nuclear installations too.<br><br>By using ballistic missiles and cluster munitions on a densely populated area like Beersheba, Iran is also possibly signalling that it can target civilian areas if it wants to.</p><p><br><i>Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing developments in the Israel-Iran conflict. In this context, claims and counterclaims are being made online and offline. However, we cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, photos, and </i>videos.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Soroka Hospita in Beersheba was among Iran missile targets, and Israel vowed revenge for the attack. So, where is Beersheba? 

Iranian missiles have hit the city of Beersheba in the ongoing war with Israel, hitting its hospitals, buildings and other installations. Soroka Hospital was among the targets, and Israel vowed revenge for the attack. So, where is Beersheba? Why is it important, and why did Iran attack the hospital? Please note that Iran and Israel are separated by 1,000 miles of territory. So the only major way to attack is through the air, which is why Iran is raining missiles on Israel, in the wake of the Jewish nation's offensive on the Islamic Republic that started on June 13. Where is Beersheba? Beersheba is a prominent city located in southern Israel’s Negev Desert. It is nearly 70 miles south of Jerusalem and 25 miles east of the Gaza Strip, where Israel is locked in battle with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Known as the capital of the Negev, Beersheba is the administrative and economic hub of southern Israel. As it is not located near a border, Beersheba is safe from conventional cross-border attacks.But it can be reached by Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-moves-closer-to-attacking-iran-1750397169331/embed Iran's attack on Soroka Hospital Several people were injured in Iran's missile attack on Beersheba's Soroka Medical Center on Thursday (June 19). Iran claimed that the barrage was targeted at a nearby military and intelligence headquarters. The missiles, it appears, were meant for the Southern Command of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Gav-Yam Technology Park in the city. The Southern Command is believed to be located some two kilometres from Soroka Hospital. The attack on the hospital injured dozens of people. Casualties at the Soroka Hospital were limited as patients were moved underground in time, according to reports, but the building was damaged and on fire. Israeli leaders called the hospital attack by Iran a deliberate war crime. Beersheba’s strategic importance The IDF's Southern Command headquarters is believed to be coordinating military operations in southern Israel from Beersheba. The city is near airbases like Hatzerim and Nevatim. These airbases are playing a crucial role in Israel's air defence and operations. Beereheba also supports logistics and communication hubs. For all these reasons, Beersheba is strategically important, making it a high-value target Iran, in order to hit its military and civilian infrastructure. Is there a nuclear angle to Beersheba attack? Besides its role as a key urban centre hosting critical infrastructure, Beersheba is also located near Dimona. Some 20 miles away from Beersheba, Dimona hosts the nuclear research center of Israel. This adds to the strategic significance of Beersheba. By attacking Beersheba, Iran is possibly sending a signal that it can come very close to, and possibly attack, Israel's nuclear installations too. By using ballistic missiles and cluster munitions on a densely populated area like Beersheba, Iran is also possibly signalling that it can target civilian areas if it wants to. Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing developments in the Israel-Iran conflict. In this context, claims and counterclaims are being made online and offline. However, we cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, photos, and videos.

<p>Soroka Hospita in Beersheba was among Iran's targets, and Israel vowed revenge for the attack. So, where is Beersheba?&nbsp;</p>

Why did Iran target Beersheba? Is there a nuclear angle? Know about city burning after Iranian missile attack

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.