Middle East
Israel’s attack on Isfahan signals a change in strategy
The drone attack on the Iranian military facility in Isfahan signals a significant shift in Israel’s strategy to contain Iran. Washington, which now prioritizes the Asia-Pacific region but worries that China and Russia may fill the vacuum left in the Middle East, has given its implicit approval to this shift.
Iran officially blamed Israel for the January 28 drone attack on a military facility in Isfahan. Early investigations suggest that the Israeli regime was responsible for this drone attack, Said Iravani, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN, wrote in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. ‘Iran reserves its legitimate and inherent right to defend its national security and respond resolutely to any threats or wrongful actions by the Israeli regime, wherever and whenever deemed necessary,’ the letter said.
What is known about the attack?
- Iranian state-run news agency announced that micro-drones hit an advanced weapons-production facility of the Iranian Ministry of Defense on the night of January 28.
- On January 29, The WSJ wrote that the drone attack was carried out by Israel, based on unnamed US officials and people familiar with the operation.
- “Washington had no hand in the Isfahan attack,” Israeli public broadcaster KAN quoted an unnamed US official.
- “We don’t have a comment on these reports,” an Israeli army spokesman told Anadolu Agency.
- According to “Nournews,” a news outlet with close ties to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the equipment used in the attack was transferred into Iran with the help of separationist Kurdish groups based in Iraq’s northern region under orders by a foreign security service.
Israel’s shift in strategy
Israel’s actions have so far followed a plan that prioritizes combating Iran’s nuclear program and extra-Iran militia groups. Israel’s killings of scientists working for Tehran’s nuclear program and strikes on the country’s nuclear facilities were all part of this overarching strategy. Second, Israel launched aerial attacks on Iranian militias, Tehran-backed armed groups, and ammunition shipments. At this point, it is important to stress that Russia has “overlooked” the air strikes against the “Iran-backed militias” in Syria. This implicit agreement with Russia knowingly made Tel Aviv reluctant to provide strategic weapons to Ukraine until yesterday.
By adding a third pillar, Israel has expanded its plan with the Isfahan strike: targeting Iran’s missile and UAV technology directly on Iranian soil.
The reason behind the shift
So why did Israel need this shift in strategy, and what is its purpose?
First off, the Tel Aviv government views Iran’s nuclear arsenal as an existential danger. Therefore, from the very beginning, Israel has opposed the Democrats-led United States, sitting at the table with Iran. Tel Aviv advocates for a continuation of the “hawkish” approach to Iran that the Trump administration has taken. Coming at a time when nuclear talks were hopeless, this strike conveys that Israel does not hesitate to engage in a harder fight with Tehran. This not only shows the politically discordant United States how determined Tel Aviv is in terms of Iran but also paves the way for “normalization” with Arab countries suffering from the “Iran threat.” Moreover, by the “external enemy,” Israel also makes an effort to assuage concerns voiced about “extreme” actions that provoked a backlash among Israelis, such as the judicial reform of the extreme right-wing government. As a matter of fact, both the conflict that flared up due to Israel’s hardened policy against the Palestinians in the West Bank for a while and the attack in Isfahan have already overshadowed the protests against the government.
Timing is remarkable
- Just one day after the conclusion of the “Juniper Oak” exercise, billed as the “most important joint military exercise ever” of the United States and Israel, and allegedly practicing the attack plan, the strike on Iran supposedly went into effect.
- White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was in Tel Aviv 10 days before the strike. Furthermore, a “surprise” strike occurred while CIA chief William Burns was in Israel. It is also remarkable that the highest-profile visit from the United States to Israel (the US Secretary of State) since Netanyahu came to power happened only three days after the attack.
Even if the United States did not have a direct role in the attack’s planning or organization, all these “coincidences” indicate that it had the knowledge and consent.
The timing of the strike for Iran also gives clues about Israel’s “political calculations.”
- Criticism is growing, particularly in Europe, due to the demonstrations that began following the killing of Mahsa Amini, the method by which these rallies were crushed, and the death sentences given to protestors.
- Despite continued behind-the-scenes talks, little hope is there for a return to the Nuclear Deal.
- Furthermore, the attack “coincided” with the Atlantic reaction on the grounds that Tehran provided drones to Russia in the Ukraine War.
- It should also be noted that Tel Aviv, chastised for not providing high-tech weaponry to Ukraine before the strike, audibly stated that it was considering supplying these weapons to Kyiv shortly after the attack.
In summary, Israel undoubtedly made a political “maneuver” to send a message to the West by attacking Tehran’s missile and UAV manufacturing facility, criticized for providing drones to Russia. This move demonstrates that Israel is unafraid to state its position clearly in the ongoing war between China, Russia, and the US over the sphere of influence in the Middle East.
How will Iran respond?
Iran has repeatedly declared that it will retaliate against the Israeli attack on Isfahan. Tehran’s reprisal for earlier assaults was either drone strikes on Israeli warships or coordinated cyberattacks against Israeli infrastructure. Last year, Iran also launched a ballistic-missile attack on an allegedly Israeli facility in Erbil. Tehran possibly avoids starting a new front while paying the costs of these low-intensity wars and conflicts and the enormous cost of internal demonstrations and economic sanctions. Tehran will most likely prefer to continue its low-intense fight with Tel Aviv on existing fronts.
However, Iran’s possibility of getting rid of the entrapment with a solution that Israel will not be pleased with is likely, albeit low. Iran has a bargaining chip in the nuclear negotiations: the drones exported to Russia. Why? Because Russia, not Iran, is the top priority for the United States and Europe. In addition, the sooner Europe, in need of Russian gas, agrees with Iran, the quicker it will have the opportunity to create another alternative to Russian gas.
US interest
Having been focused on the Asia-Pacific region for some time and gotten ready to struggle with China, the Biden administration is not keen on escalating tensions in the Middle East, especially not those that include Israel. However, Washington is worried that China and Russia will step in to fill the vacuum in the region. The old allies of the US in the Middle East are attempting to cultivate ties with its “enemies,” China and Russia, out of concern that they will be left vulnerable without the US security cover. On the other hand, these allies are forming new coalitions against Iran, their “foe” in the region. Under these circumstances, the United States seems to implicitly approve Israel’s new policy of raising tension against Iran, expecting Israel not to be drawn into a new adventure. It remains unknown which guarantees Israel gave to the US to get this approval. However, soon after the Isfahan strike, Netanyahu’s declaration on CNN that they may provide weapons to Ukraine offers insights into the nature of the such guarantee. Nevertheless, it is too soon to predict whether Israel would really supply weapons to Ukraine despite Russia. However, it is evident that the period has just begun in which Israel will make its name in the region through extremely “hawkish” policies.
Middle East
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.
The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.
The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.
In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.
At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.
The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.
Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion
The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.
Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.
At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.
The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.
In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.
In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.
In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.
The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.
The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.
As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.
For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.
In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.
The report listed several additional limitations:
Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.
Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.
No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.
Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.
Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.
No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.
Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.
Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.
Middle East
Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US
Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.
Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.
US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.
According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.
US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal
According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.
US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.
The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.
Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.
Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement
An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.
During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.
Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.
In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.
In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.
Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.
Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed
The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.
Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.
The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.
After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.
Negotiations to continue in Switzerland
According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.
A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.
According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.
The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.
In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America6 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
