Connect with us

News

Revolutionary Guard commanders vow response to Israel attack on Iran

Published

on

Revolutionary Guard commanders vow response to Israel attack on Iran

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The top commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards issued a stark warning to Israel on Thursday, vowing that Tehran would deliver a harsh response to last week’s Israeli strikes on the Islamic republic.

Major General Hossein Salami, the head of the guards corps, warned in a speech that Iran’s retaliation would be “unimaginable” as Iranian officials stepped up their rhetoric against Israel.

“Israelis think they can launch a couple of missiles and change history,” he said. “You have not forgotten . . . how Iranian missiles opened up the sky . . . and made you sleepless.”

Advertisement

Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said.

The belligerent comments came as the Islamic regime weighs its options following Israel’s attack on Saturday, during which Israeli war planes launched three waves of strikes at Iranian military installations. The targets included missile factories and air defence systems in three provinces, including Tehran.

Regime insiders told the Financial Times that the options being considered include a possible strike before next week’s US presidential election, or Iran’s leaders could decide to hold off for now.

“The winner of the US election could take an Iranian attack personally and act against Iran. So, if Iran wants to respond to Israel, the best time is before the US election,” one insider said. “The only thing that could change this would be a fair breakthrough in ceasefire talks between [Hizbollah in] Lebanon and Israel which does not seem very likely.”

The US has this week stepped up efforts to broker a deal to end the conflict that has lasted more than a year between Israel and Hizbollah, Iran’s most important proxy.

Advertisement

But there was little optimism of a breakthrough as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Israel retain the right to unilaterally enforce any agreement that would lead to Hizbollah withdrawing from southern Lebanon.

Another Iranian insider indicated Tehran might opt to maintain psychological pressure on Israel rather than launch a direct assault.

“With Hizbollah launching tens of rockets into Israel daily in a legitimate war, a direct response may not be necessary right now,” the insider said. “What benefits us is not a direct war with Israel. We need to keep the level of people’s stress low so that they can live their lives. This is the top priority.”

But an Iranian analyst said the dilemma for Tehran was “that Israel would take any delay in Iran’s response as a sign of weakness and would feel emboldened”.

Iran’s initial reaction to Israel’s strikes — which were in retaliation for an Iranian missile barrage fired at the Jewish state on October 1 — suggested that Tehran’s response would be measured and not immediate, Iranian analysts said.

Advertisement

Speaking on Sunday, a day after Israel’s attack, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader and ultimate decision maker, refrained from vowing to retaliate.

Instead, he said the strikes should neither be “overestimated or underestimated”. Iranian state media played down the impact of the attack, which killed four soldiers and a civilian, saying the damage was limited.

But Tehran has shown a willingness to risk an escalation with Israel as regional hostilities triggered by Hamas’s October 7 2023 attack have spread across the Middle East, thrusting Iran’s years-long shadow war with its regional enemy into the open.

In April, it fired more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel in a clearly telegraphed retaliation for an Israeli strike on the republic’s embassy compound in Syria, which killed several senior guards commanders.

It gave little notice before launching 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, a more severe attack that was in response to the Israeli assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader and a close confidant of Khamenei.

Advertisement

“Only a shock can stop Israel from its aggressions and free the region from the current stalemate,” the first regime insider said. “Iran might even go for a big bang and do something totally outside Israelis’ calculations as there is no other way to stop it.”

The US, which has pledged an “ironclad” commitment to the defence of Israel, has warned Iran not to retaliate as western nations have sought to contain the crisis amid heightened fears of all-out war.

“We will not hesitate to act in self defence. Let there be no confusion. The United States does not want to see further escalation,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, said this week.

News

Video: Rob Reiner and His Wife Are Found Dead in Their Los Angeles Home

Published

on

Video: Rob Reiner and His Wife Are Found Dead in Their Los Angeles Home

new video loaded: Rob Reiner and His Wife Are Found Dead in Their Los Angeles Home

transcript

transcript

Rob Reiner and His Wife Are Found Dead in Their Los Angeles Home

The Los Angeles Police Department was investigating what it described as “an apparent homicide” after the director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home.

“One louder.” “Why don’t you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number and make that a little louder?”

Advertisement
The Los Angeles Police Department was investigating what it described as “an apparent homicide” after the director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home.

By Axel Boada

December 15, 2025

Continue Reading

News

BBC Verify: Videos show impact of mass drone attacks launched by Ukraine and Russia

Published

on

BBC Verify:  Videos show impact of mass drone attacks launched by Ukraine and Russia

How has the UK government performed against its key pledges?published at 11:18 GMT

Ben Chu
BBC Verify policy and analysis correspondent

Around a year ago Prime Minister Keir Starmer launched his “Plan for Change” setting out targets he said would be met by the end of this Parliament in 2029.

Advertisement

So ahead of Starmer being questioned by senior MPs on the House of Commons Liaison Committee this afternoon, I’ve taken a look at how the government has been performing on three key goals.

House building

The government said it would deliver 1.5 million net additional homes in England over the parliament.

That would imply around 300,000 a year on average, but we’re currently running at just over 200,000 a year.

Ministers say they are going to ramp up to the 1.5 million target in the later years of the parliament – however, the delivery rate so far is down on the final years of the last Conservative government.

Advertisement

Health

The government has promised that 92% of patients in England will be seen within 18 weeks.

At the moment around 62% are – but there are signs of a slight pick up over the past year.

Living standards

The government pledged to grow real household disposable income per person – roughly what’s left after taxes, benefits and inflation.

Advertisement

There has been some movement on this measure with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasting 0.5% growth in living standards on average a year.

However that would still make it the second weakest Parliament since the 1970s. The worst was under the previous Conservative government between 2019 and 2024 when living standards declined.

Continue Reading

News

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Nov. 3

Published

on

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Nov. 3

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia November 3, 2025 Page 2

compel Attorney General Bondi to release what you have stated is a large trove of unseen files, which the public to date is still waiting to see released.

Your October 22 letter does not provide a persuasive rationale for why deposing the Clintons is required to fulfill the mandate of your investigation, particularly when what little information they have may be efficiently obtained in writing.

You state that your investigation into the “mismanagement” of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations and prosecutions requires the depositions of three individuals: former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Clinton, and former Attorney General William Barr – who was serving in the first Trump Administration when Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in federal custody. Compounding this inexplicable choice of deponents, you also have chosen not to depose the dozens of individuals whose links to Mr. Epstein have been publicly documented.

My clients have been private citizens for the last 24 and 12 years, respectively. President Clinton’s term ended six (6) years before allegations surfaced against Mr. Epstein. Former Secretary of State Clinton’s position was in no way related to law enforcement and is completely afield of any aspect of the Epstein matter. While neither of my clients have anything to offer for the stated purposes of the Committee’s investigation, subpoenaing former Secretary Clinton is on its face both purposeless and harassing. I set forth in my October 6 letter the facts that she did not know Epstein, did not travel with him, and had no dealings with him. Indeed, when I met with your staff to learn your basis for including former Secretary Clinton, none was given beyond wanting to ask if she had ever spoken with her husband about this matter. Setting aside the plainly relevant consideration of marital privilege, this is an entirely pretextual basis for compelling former Secretary Clinton to appear personally in this matter.

It is incumbent on the Committee to address the most basic questions regarding the basis for singling out the Clintons, particularly when there is no obvious or apparent rationale for it, given the mandate of the Committee’s investigation. Your October 22 letter does not provide such a justification. And your previous statements, belied by the facts, that President Clinton is a “prime suspect” (for something) because of visits to Epstein’s island betokens bias, not fairness. You said, on August 11:

“Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island, and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there, so he’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee.”

“1

Regrettably, such statements are not the words of an impartial and dispassionate factfinder. In fact, President Clinton has never visited Epstein’s island. He has repeatedly stated that, the Secret Service has corroborated that denial, Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent testimony to Deputy Attorney General Blanche reconfirmed this, as did the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her

Fields, “Comer: Bill Clinton ‘Prime Suspect’ in Epstein Investigation,” The Hill (Aug. 12, 2025).

Continue Reading

Trending