How Vulnerable Is America’s Reliance on Satellites and Cyber Networks for Air and Space Operations? In modern warfare, the silent backbone of American air and space operations is not just stealth aircraft, hypersonic weapons, or even carriers in distant seas—it is the invisible lattice of satellites and cyber networks that connect everything together. From GPS-guided bombs and encrypted communications to missile warning systems and drone operations, the U.S. military is more dependent than ever on digital and orbital infrastructure. Yet this reliance creates both an unmatched advantage and a dangerous vulnerability: if those networks are disrupted, blinded, or hijacked, the world’s most advanced military could suddenly find itself fighting in the dark. The Foundation of U.S. Military Power- America’s military dominance is often portrayed in terms of aircraft like the F-35, carrier strike groups, or nuclear submarines. But in reality, nearly all of these platforms derive their true effectiveness from satellite and cyber networks. Consider just a few examples: Navigation and Timing: GPS, operated by the U.S. Space Force, underpins not just smart weapons but also aircraft flight paths, naval maneuvering, and even logistics supply chains. Communication: Secure satellite links allow fighter jets, drones, and ground troops to coordinate across vast distances. Surveillance and Reconnaissance: Spy satellites deliver real-time imagery and signals intelligence, giving commanders a global view of adversary movements. Missile Defense: Early warning satellites detect launches within seconds, providing critical time to intercept or retaliate. Strip away these assets, and the U.S. would lose much of the precision and speed that defines modern American warfare. The Threat Landscape 1. Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons- Both China and Russia have developed weapons capable of destroying or disabling satellites. In 2007, China shocked the world by using a missile to blow up one of its own weather satellites—demonstrating the ability to target low-Earth orbit. Since then, Beijing has reportedly tested “co-orbital” systems that can maneuver close to other satellites, potentially disabling them with jammers, robotic arms, or even kamikaze collisions. Russia has conducted similar tests. A small number of ASAT attacks on critical GPS or communication satellites could cripple U.S. forces during a crisis. 2. Cyber Intrusions- Unlike a missile strike, a cyberattack leaves no debris trail and can be deniable. U.S. satellites and their ground stations are constant targets of hacking attempts. A successful breach could shut down communication links, feed false data, or seize control of orbital assets. In 2018, reports surfaced that Chinese hackers targeted contractors connected to U.S. satellite operations. As military networks become more complex, the attack surface only grows. 3. Jamming and Spoofing- GPS signals are inherently weak and vulnerable to interference. Both Russia and China have deployed powerful jammers capable of disrupting GPS over wide areas. Spoofing—sending false GPS signals—can mislead aircraft, ships, or missiles into going off course. In recent years, NATO exercises in Eastern Europe have reported Russian GPS disruptions affecting both civilian and military systems. 4. Space Debris and Collisions- Even without deliberate attacks, space is increasingly congested. With thousands of satellites now in orbit and mega-constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink being deployed, the risk of accidental collisions rises. An adversary could also create debris clouds deliberately, rendering orbital pathways too hazardous for U.S. military satellites. Why the Stakes Are So High- The U.S. military is built around the concept of network-centric warfare—a system where sensors, decision-makers, and shooters are seamlessly connected. Without satellites, advanced aircraft like the F-35 lose their ability to share targeting data. Without cyber-secure communications, drones cannot be piloted, missiles cannot receive mid-course updates, and troops lose coordination. In short, America’s heavy reliance means adversaries don’t necessarily need to match U.S. firepower plane-for-plane or ship-for-ship. They simply need to target the connective tissue—the satellites and networks—that bind the U.S. military machine together. This asymmetric approach is precisely why China and Russia have invested so heavily in counter-space and cyber capabilities. Steps Toward Resilience- The U.S. has not ignored these vulnerabilities. Several initiatives aim to make its space and cyber infrastructure more resilient: Space Force Modernization: The creation of the U.S. Space Force in 2019 reflects recognition of space as a warfighting domain. New programs emphasize more numerous, smaller satellites that are harder to target, rather than a few large ones. Protected Communications: The U.S. is developing hardened, jam-resistant communication satellites like the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system. Cyber Defense Investments: Cyber Command and Space Command are working more closely to safeguard ground stations and data links. Artificial intelligence is being deployed to detect anomalies in network behavior that could indicate cyber intrusions. Allied Cooperation: Partnerships with NATO and Indo-Pacific allies help share satellite coverage and build redundancy. For example, Britain, France, and Japan are expanding their own military space programs. Private Sector Integration: With commercial space actors like SpaceX, Amazon’s Kuiper, and others launching massive satellite constellations, the Pentagon is looking at ways to integrate these networks into defense planning—giving redundancy at lower cost. The Future Battlefield- Looking ahead, warfare in space and cyberspace will likely be less about outright destruction and more about denial and deception. An adversary may not need to blow up U.S. satellites; it may be enough to jam signals, feed false data, or disable control systems temporarily. The challenge for the U.S. will be to ensure redundancy, rapid reconstitution, and a mix of space-based and terrestrial alternatives so no single failure cripples its forces. Conclusion: A Fragile High Ground- America’s reliance on satellites and cyber networks has given it extraordinary global reach and precision. But this high ground is fragile. The same systems that enable lightning-fast strikes and worldwide coordination could also be the soft underbelly of U.S. power in a major conflict. If an adversary can blind the eye in the sky or sever the digital arteries of the U.S. military, the advantage of high-tech systems like stealth aircraft and missile defenses would quickly erode. Thus, the question is not whether satellites and cyber networks will remain central—they will—but whether the U.S. can harden and diversify them fast enough to prevent its own strength from becoming its greatest vulnerability.

Is India’s infantry adequately equipped for next-generation battlefield challenges, from drones to cyberwarfare? India's infantry is undergoing a significant transformation to meet the challenges of modern warfare, but its readiness is a mix of promising advancements and persistent gaps. The military recognizes that the traditional "foot soldier" must evolve into a "technology-empowered warfighter" to be effective on a modern battlefield dominated by drones, cyber threats, and network-centric operations. Modernization Efforts and Strengths The Indian Army's Futuristic Infantry Soldier as a System (F-INSAS) program is at the heart of this modernization drive. It's a comprehensive initiative that aims to upgrade every aspect of the soldier's gear, from firepower to survivability and digital integration. Upgraded Firepower: The Indian Army has been phasing out its long-standing INSAS rifles, which were known for their reliability issues, in favor of modern assault rifles like the Sig Sauer 716 and the AK-203. This is a significant step towards improving the soldier's primary weapon. Additionally, the infantry is being equipped with advanced anti-tank guided missiles, precision-guided munitions, and modern grenade launchers to enhance their ability to engage enemy fortifications and armored threats. Enhanced Survivability: The push for indigenous Level 6 body armor, which provides enhanced ballistic protection without excessive weight, is a crucial step towards better protecting soldiers. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is also exploring the use of exoskeletons to increase endurance and reduce the physical burden on soldiers in difficult terrains. Counter-Drone Capabilities: India is actively developing and deploying counter-drone systems to protect its infantry from the growing threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and loitering munitions. The "Bhargavastra" system, developed by a private Indian company, is a notable example. It is a multi-layered, low-cost system designed to detect and neutralize drone swarms with micro-missiles and rockets. Furthermore, every infantry battalion is being equipped with a dedicated drone platoon to enhance reconnaissance, target acquisition, and situational awareness. Cyber and Network-Centric Warfare: India has established new doctrines for cyberspace and amphibious operations. The Battlefield Management System (BMS), currently in development, aims to create a real-time digital network that allows commanders to make precise, informed decisions based on live intelligence. This is a critical step in a future where information superiority is a key determinant of success. Remaining Challenges Despite these advances, several challenges remain that prevent the infantry from being fully prepared for next-generation combat. Procurement Delays: The Indian defense procurement process has historically been slow and bureaucratic. This often leads to significant delays in the acquisition and deployment of new equipment, creating critical gaps in capabilities. Technological Gaps: While India is pushing for indigenization, it still faces technological gaps in high-end defense systems and components. The country's defense budget, while large, allocates a limited portion to research and development, which hinders innovation. Infrastructure and Training: Modernizing a military of 1.4 million personnel is a monumental task. Ensuring that all infantry units, especially those in remote and high-altitude areas, have access to the latest equipment, and are adequately trained in its use, remains a significant logistical and training challenge. Fragmented Approach: While the F-INSAS program is comprehensive, its implementation has been fragmented. Critics have pointed out that the Army is still in the initial phases of this modernization, and bureaucratic inefficiencies have hampered its swift execution. In conclusion, the Indian Army is well aware of the challenges posed by next-generation warfare and is taking decisive steps to equip its infantry for a multi-domain battlespace. The F-INSAS program and the focus on indigenous technology are positive developments. However, to truly be ready for the threats of drones and cyber warfare, India needs to overcome its persistent challenges in procurement, budget allocation, and the full-scale integration of its modernization efforts.

Does the Indian Army have the logistical capacity for long-term high-altitude warfare along the China border? The Indian Army's logistical capacity for long-term high-altitude warfare along the China border has been a major focus of modernization efforts, particularly since the 2020 border standoff in Ladakh. While India has made significant progress, a complex set of challenges and improvements characterize its current capabilities. Strengths and Improvements Extensive Experience: The Indian Army possesses significant experience in high-altitude warfare, having maintained a military presence in treacherous terrains like the Siachen Glacier for decades. This experience has given it a deep understanding of the unique logistical difficulties, such as the effects of thin air on equipment and personnel, and the need for specialized clothing and rations. Infrastructure Development: India has accelerated the development of infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). This includes the construction of strategic roads, bridges, and tunnels, such as the Zojila Tunnel and the Sela Tunnel, which aim to provide all-weather connectivity to previously isolated forward areas. The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) has been instrumental in this effort, building thousands of kilometers of roads to improve the speed of troop and supply movements. Advance Winter Stocking: The Indian Army has a well-established and highly-effective system for "advance winter stocking." This involves stockpiling massive quantities of rations, fuel, ammunition, and specialized winter gear in forward posts before the passes close due to snow. This ensures that troops can be sustained through the long winter months when road access is impossible. Upgraded Equipment: The army is acquiring and deploying specialized equipment for high-altitude operations. This includes indigenous all-terrain vehicles, which are helicopter transportable and capable of operating in snow-covered, undulating terrain. The introduction of modern artillery, tanks, and missile systems has also bolstered firepower in these regions. Challenges and Vulnerabilities Infrastructure Asymmetry with China: Despite India's progress, China's infrastructure along the border, particularly in Tibet, is far more advanced. China has built an extensive network of roads, high-speed railways, and airports, allowing for rapid troop and material mobilization. While India is catching up, this infrastructure gap remains a significant vulnerability, potentially giving China a speed advantage in a conflict. Dependency on Air-Lifting: In a long-term conflict, while road infrastructure is crucial, the initial and emergency response would rely on airlifts. While India has a credible air force, air-lifting supplies in high-altitude environments is a logistical challenge. The thin atmosphere significantly reduces a helicopter's carrying capacity and increases operational costs, making it an expensive and limited option for mass transportation. Personnel Costs and Budgetary Constraints: The high cost of maintaining troops in high-altitude environments is a significant drain on the defense budget. The cost of a single soldier at a post like Siachen can be astronomical, and this massive expenditure on personnel, specialized equipment, and winter supplies can divert funds from other modernization priorities. Vulnerability of Supply Lines: Even with improved infrastructure, India's supply lines, which are often single-lane roads in rugged mountainous terrain, remain vulnerable to enemy attacks, landslides, and extreme weather. A successful strike on a key bridge or tunnel could cripple the logistical chain to a forward post. In conclusion, the Indian Army has a robust and continuously evolving logistical capacity for high-altitude warfare. It has learned from decades of experience and is making a concerted effort to bridge the infrastructure and technological gaps with its primary adversary. However, the inherent challenges of the Himalayan terrain and the scale of China's own military infrastructure development mean that India must continue to prioritize these logistical capabilities to ensure its long-term readiness and ability to sustain a prolonged conflict.

Are India’s armed forces ready for a simultaneous two-front conflict with China and Pakistan? The question of whether India's armed forces are ready for a simultaneous two-front conflict with China and Pakistan is a subject of intense debate among military analysts and strategists. While India has been actively modernizing and restructuring its forces to meet this challenge, several factors complicate the assessment of its readiness. The Strategic and Operational Dilemma- A two-front war scenario is a worst-case contingency that Indian military and political leadership has long acknowledged as a serious threat. This is due to the "near-absolute collusivity" between China and Pakistan, who have a close strategic relationship and have provided each other with military and diplomatic support. The challenge for India is to be able to defend its long and rugged borders with both adversaries without being overstretched or compromising its ability to respond to a major offensive on either front. Recent Reforms and Preparedness Efforts- In recent years, the Indian military has undertaken significant reforms to enhance its readiness for a multi-front conflict: Restructuring the Army: The Indian Army has been overhauling its structure to create more agile and integrated units. This includes the formation of "Rudra brigades," which are all-arms combat units with infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces, and drones, designed for faster and more integrated responses along the borders. New "Bhairav" light commando battalions and drone platoons in every infantry battalion are also being introduced to enhance battlefield awareness and precision. Modernization of Hardware: India is investing in advanced missile systems, including the BrahMos, Akash, and S-400 air defense systems, which have been tested in recent clashes with Pakistan. This is part of a broader effort to upgrade its air defense network and artillery. Tri-Service Synergy: The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the move towards Integrated Theatre Commands are aimed at improving coordination and operational synergy between the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This is a crucial step for a two-front war, which would require a seamless and integrated response across all three services. Key Challenges and Vulnerabilities- Despite these reforms, significant challenges remain that could hinder India's ability to effectively fight a two-front war: Resource Constraints: A large portion of India's defense budget is spent on revenue expenditures like salaries and pensions, leaving limited funds for capital acquisition and modernization. This has resulted in critical shortfalls in key areas, such as the Indian Air Force's fighter squadron strength. Infrastructure Deficiencies: While India is rapidly building infrastructure along its northern borders, it still lags behind China in terms of roads, tunnels, and airfields, which could impede the rapid movement of troops and supplies. Technological Gaps: While India has made progress in indigenous defense production, it still relies heavily on foreign imports for advanced military technology. This can create vulnerabilities in supply chains and make India's defense preparedness dependent on its relations with key suppliers. Hybrid Warfare: India is also vulnerable to "grey zone" and "hybrid warfare" tactics from both adversaries, including cyberattacks and the use of non-state actors. These threats can divert resources and attention, complicating India's response to a conventional conflict. In conclusion, while the Indian Armed Forces are actively preparing for a two-front conflict and have implemented significant reforms, they are still grappling with challenges related to budget, technology, and infrastructure. The military leadership has acknowledged that a two-front war is a "reality" and a possibility that the nation must be prepared for. However, they also emphasize the importance of diplomatic and political engagement to prevent such a scenario, recognizing that a country does not go to war with its armed forces alone.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday cautioned Germany that Moscow would consider it to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine if Berlin supplied Kyiv with Taurus cruise missiles, but said he was ready to speak to Chancellor Friedrich Merz. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said earlier this month that Germany is not considering delivering Taurus cruise missiles, which have a range in excess of 300 miles (480 km), to Ukraine despite Kyiv's repeated requests. Putin said that to fire the Taurus missiles, Ukraine would need Western satellite intelligence and German officers to take care of targeting which, if they were fired at Russia, would mean German officers striking Russian territory. "What is this, if not the involvement of the Federal Republic in a direct armed conflict with the Russian Federation? It can't be called anything else," Putin told senior news agency editors in the northern Russian city of St Petersburg. Putin added that even if Germany did supply the missiles, it would have no impact on the ultimate course of the war, adding that Russian troops were advancing in all directions. Asked if he was willing to speak to Merz, Putin, a fluent German speaker who served as a KGB spy in former East Germany, said he was ready to. "If the Federal Chancellor wants to call and talk, I have already said this many times - we do not refuse any contacts. And we are always open to this," Putin said. Putin added, though, that he did not consider that Germany was a neutral mediator when it came to the war in Ukraine given the presence of German tanks on the battlefield. "We consider the Federal Republic, just like many other European countries, not a neutral state, but as a party supporting Ukraine, and in some cases, perhaps, as accomplices in these hostilities," Putin said.

Trump says he's 'not looking for a fight' with Iran but stands ready to act if necessary. President Donald Trump said Wednesday he doesn't want to carry out a U.S. strike on Iran but suggested he stands ready to act if it's necessary to extinguish Iran's nuclear program. Trump continued his increasingly pointed warnings about the U.S. joining Israel in striking at Tehran's nuclear program as Iran's leader warned anew that the United States would be greeted with stiff retaliation if it attacks. The stakes are high for Trump — and the world — as he engages in a push-pull debate between his goals of avoiding dragging the U.S. into another war and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “I’m not looking to fight," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "But if it’s a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.” Trump pondered his next steps as the U.S. embassy in Israel began evacuating a number of diplomats and family members who had asked to leave Israel. Meanwhile, senior European diplomats are set to hold talks with Iran in Geneva on Friday, according to a European official familiar with the matter. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity, said the high-ranking diplomats from Germany, France and the United Kingdom as well as the European Union’s top diplomat will take part in the talks. Trump, who met with his national security aides for a second straight day in the White House Situation Room, also told reporters it’s not “too late” for Iran to give up its nuclear program. “I may do it, I may not do it,” Trump said of a potential U.S. strike. “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” “Nothing is finished until it is finished,” he added, signaling a decision could soon. “The next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week." No surrender from Iran- Trump also offered a terse response to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's refusal to heed to his call for Iran to submit to an unconditional surrender. “I say good luck,” Trump said. Khamenei earlier in the day warned that any U.S. strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will “result in irreparable damage for them” and that his country would not bow to Trump’s call for surrender. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the Pentagon was providing possible options to Trump as he decides next steps on Iran. Trump had said Tuesday the U.S. knows where Khamenei is hiding but doesn’t want him killed — “for now.” “He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump said. Trump’s increasingly muscular comments toward the Iranian government follow him urging Tehran’s 9.5 million residents to flee for their lives as he cut short his participation in an international summit earlier this week to return to Washington for urgent talks with his national security team. Trump said that the Iranian officials continue to reach out to the White House as they’re “getting the hell beaten out of them” by Israel. But he added there's a “big difference between now and a week ago" in Tehran's negotiating position. “They’ve suggested that they come to the White House — that’s, you know, courageous,” Trump said. Iran's mission to the United Nations rejected Trump's claim in a statement on social media. “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to ‘take out’ Iran’s Supreme Leader. ” Enter Putin- The U.S. president said earlier this week Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to serve as a mediator with Iran. But Trump said he told Putin to keep focused on finding an endgame to his own conflict with Ukraine. “I said, ‘Do me a favor, mediate your own,’” Trump said he told Putin. “I said, ‘Vladimir, let’s mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.’” The comments represented a shift for Trump, who earlier this week said he was “open” to Putin's offer to mediate. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier Wednesday that Moscow has cautioned Washington against offering direct military assistance to Israel. “We are warning Washington against even speculative, hypothetical considerations of the sort,” Ryabkov said, according to the Interfax news agency. “That would be a step drastically destabilizing the situation as a whole.” The Russia-Iran relationship has deepened since Putin launched a war on Ukraine in February 2022, with Tehran providing Moscow with drones, ballistic missiles, and other support, according to U.S. intelligence findings. MAGA allies raise questions- Trump is also facing growing skepticism about deepening U.S. involvement in the Mideast crisis from some of his most ardent supporters. Trump during his 2024 run for the White House promised voters he would quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and keep the U.S. out of costly conflicts. Steve Bannon, who served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first administration, said the administration should tread carefully. “This is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, ok?" Bannon told reporters at an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "With 92 million people. This is not something you play around with. You have to think this through. And the American people have to be on board. You can’t just dump it on them.” Bannon and other Trump allies, including Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, have raised concerns that direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could be seen as a betrayal to some members of Trump's coalition and cause a schism in MAGA world. To be certain, some Trump backers are supportive of the president taking military action against Iran and play down the risk of the U.S. getting mired in a conflict. “In terms of U.S. involvement in military action, there is zero possibility of American boots on the ground in Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. Trump pushed back at the notion that deepening U.S. involvement could impact his standing with his base. “My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m in love with them more than they were even at election time when we had a total landslide,” Trump said.

Iranian and U.S. delegations wrapped up a fifth round of talks in Rome on Friday and signs of some limited progress emerged in the negotiations aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Despite both Washington and Tehran taking a tough stance in public ahead of the talks on Iran's uranium enrichment, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there was potential for progress after Oman made several proposals during the talks. "We have just completed one of the most professional rounds of talks ... We firmly stated Iran's position ... The fact that we are now on a reasonable path, in my view, is itself a sign of progress," Araqchi told state TV. "The proposals and solutions will be reviewed in respective capitals ... and the next round of talks will be scheduled accordingly." A senior U.S. official said the talks lasted more than two hours and were both direct and indirect with Omani mediators. "The talks continue to be constructive – we made further progress, but there is still work to be done. Both sides agreed to meet again in the near future. We are grateful to our Omani partners for their continued facilitation," the official said. The stakes are high for both sides. President Donald Trump wants to curtail Tehran's potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. The Islamic Republic, for its part, wants to be rid of devastating sanctions on its oil-based economy. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X the talks between Araqchi and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had ended "with some but not conclusive progress". Ahead of the talks, Araqchi wrote on X: "Zero nuclear weapons = we Do have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide." Among remaining stumbling blocks are Tehran's refusal to ship abroad its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium - possible raw material for nuclear bombs - or engage in discussions over its ballistic missile programme. Diplomats have said reaching a concrete deal before the summer would technically be impossible given the complexities of an accord. In the meantime, a senior Iranian official involved in nuclear talks with the U.S. said "if Washington drops its 'zero enrichment' demand, a political agreement is feasible." STUMBLING BLOCKS U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington was working to reach an accord that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy programme but not enrich uranium, while acknowledging that this "will not be easy". Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last say on matters of state, rejected demands to stop refining uranium as "excessive and outrageous", warning that such talks were unlikely to yield results. Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord. Trump in his first term in 2018 ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between major powers and Iran. Since returning to office this year, he has restored a "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran and reimposed sweeping U.S. sanctions that continue to hobble the Iranian economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact's limits. Wendy Sherman, a former U.S. undersecretary who led the U.S. negotiating team that reached the 2015 agreement, earlier said that Tehran presents enrichment as a matter of sovereignty. "I don't think it is possible to get a deal with Iran where they literally dismantle their programme, give up their enrichment, even though that would be ideal," she told Reuters. The cost of failure of the talks could be high. Iran's arch-foe Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat and says it would never allow the clerical establishment to obtain nuclear weapons. Tehran says it has no such ambitions and the purposes are purely civilian. Israel's strategic affairs minister and the head of its foreign intelligence service, Mossad, were also due to be in Rome for talks with the U.S. negotiators. Araqchi said on Thursday that Washington would bear legal responsibility if Israel attacked Iranian nuclear installations, following a CNN report that Israel might be preparing strikes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Iranian foreign minister said..... The United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, Iran’s foreign minister has warned, after CNN reported that Israel could be preparing strikes. Iran and the US, Israel’s closest ally, will hold a fifth round of nuclear talks on Friday amid deep disagreement over uranium enrichment in Iran, which Washington says could lead to developing nuclear bombs. Tehran has consistently denied seeking a bomb and insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes. “Iran strongly warns against any adventurism by the Zionist regime of Israel and will decisively respond to any threat or unlawful act by this regime,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. “I have called on the international community to take effective preventive measures against the continuation of Israeli threats, which if unchecked, will compel Iran to take special measures in defence of our nuclear facilities and materials,” Araghchi said. The minister said Tehran would view Washington as a “participant” in any such attack. “The nature, content, and extent of our actions will correspond and be proportionate to preventive measures taken by these international bodies in accordance with their statutory duties and obligations,” he added. Araghchi’s remarks follow a CNN report on Tuesday that described the US as having “new intelligence suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities”. Israel has not acknowledged any preparations, though officials up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent it from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon, should it choose to pursue one. The US and Iran are due to hold indirect talks on Friday in Rome in what would be their fifth round of negotiations over a possible deal that could see Tehran limit or end its enrichment of uranium, in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Israel has repeatedly opposed such an agreement between the US and Iran. Later on Thursday, Araghchi said in an interview carried by Iranian state TV that if the US aims to end uranium enrichment then there will be no nuclear deal. US officials have said “that they do not believe in enrichment in Iran … and it has to stop completely; if this is their goal there will be no deal”, Araqchi said. The foreign minister said the idea of a uranium enrichment consortium with the participation of other nations is not bad, but will not replace enrichment on Iranian soil. Earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said US demands that Tehran stop enriching uranium were “excessive and outrageous”. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which reports directly to Khamenei, also warned on Thursday that Israel would receive a “devastating and decisive response” if it attacks Iran. “They are trying to frighten us with war, but are miscalculating as they are unaware of the powerful popular and military support the Islamic Republic can muster in war conditions,” IRGC spokesperson Alimohammad Naini was quoted by state media as saying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Iran’s top diplomat insisted that Tehran will never stop enriching uranium, reinforcing the Islamic Republic’s hard line ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the United States over its fast-advancing nuclear program. Iran's foreign ministry later confirmed it has agreed to take part in the next round of talks Friday in Rome. The comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi come after multiple rounds of talks between the two nations, including at an expert level over the details of a possible deal. American officials including President Donald Trump, Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio maintain that Iran must give up enrichment — something it didn’t do in its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. “I have said it before, and I repeat it again: uranium enrichment in Iran will continue — with or without an agreement,” Araghchi said, according to state television. Araghchi added that Iran was “currently reviewing whether to participate in the next round and when to take part” in talks with the U.S. Negotiators previously met in Muscat, Oman, and Rome but Trump’s trip to the Mideast last week delayed any new meeting. Later Wednesday, Oman’s foreign minister announced that the fifth round of indirect talks will be Friday in Rome. The minister made the comment on social media. Oman has long served as a mediator, facilitating quiet diplomacy amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, in a post on X later confirmed that Tehran has agreed to take part in the new round of talks. Washington has not confirmed the meeting or announced whether it will attend. “We have never abandoned diplomacy. We will always be present at the negotiating table, and the main reason for our presence is to defend the rights of the Iranian people,” Araghchi said. “We stand against excessive demands and rhetoric at the table.” Araghchi’s remarks came a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he didn’t expect the negotiations to produce a deal. “I don’t think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don’t know,” Khamenei said. The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic, closing in on half a century of enmity. Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached. Iranian officials increasingly warn that they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Meanwhile, Israel has threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if it feels threatened, further worsening tensions in the Mideast already spiked by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers capped Tehran’s enrichment level at 3.67% and reduced its uranium stockpile to 300 kilograms (661 pounds). That level is enough for nuclear power plants, but far below weapons-grade levels of 90%. Since the nuclear deal collapsed in 2018 with Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the accord, Iran has abandoned all limits on its program and enriched uranium to up to 60% purity — a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels. There have also been a series of attacks at sea and on land in recent years, stemming from the tensions even before the Israel-Hamas war began. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

The #Missile #Defense #System #Market is expanding rapidly due to rising global security concerns, rising geopolitical tensions, and increased investments in defense modernization. These systems are meant to detect, intercept, and neutralize incoming missiles, making them vital components of national and regional defense strategy. https://wemarketresearch.com/reports/missile-defense-system-market/1485