US-Israel Iran War Live Updates

In a dramatic escalation of military action, Israel has unleashed a barrage of over 400 air strikes on key infrastructure in Tehran over the past 48 hours, utilizing a staggering 650 munitions in the process. According to a statement from the Israeli army, the air force launched a coordinated assault on dozens of sites within the heart of the Iranian capital, with the primary objective of crippling the Iranian regime’s infrastructure.

The military operation, which unfolded under the cover of darkness, targeted approximately 15 critical facilities linked to the Iranian Defence Ministry, including a central complex that serves as a hub for the country’s weapons production.

A heartfelt letter from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is being shared with the American public, with further details to follow in the coming hours.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has forcefully countered the notion of Iran as a security threat, asserting that such portrayals are fundamentally at odds with the country’s rich historical heritage. In a letter addressed to the American people and broadcast by the state media outlet Press TV, Pezeshkian emphasized Iran’s enduring legacy as one of the world’s oldest continuously thriving civilizations.

“Iran’s name, character, and identity are deeply rooted in a storied past that defies the notion of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination,” he wrote. “Throughout its modern history, Iran has consistently chosen the path of self-defense, never initiating conflict, yet unwavering in its resolve to repel those who have sought to encroach upon its sovereignty.”

Pezeshkian argued that the depiction of Iran as a danger serves the interests of external powers. “The perception of Iran as a threat is not grounded in historical reality or present-day facts,” he stated. “Rather, it is a product of the shifting political and economic agendas of the powerful, who seek to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attributes the country’s ongoing skepticism towards the United States to a complex web of historical grievances and punitive measures. While initial interactions between the two nations were characterized by mutual respect, a series of pivotal events has irreparably strained relations.

Pezeshkian pointed to the 1953 coup d’etat as a pivotal moment in the deterioration of US-Iran relations, describing it as a brazen act of foreign interference that thwarted Iran’s efforts to assert control over its own natural resources. He emphasized that this intervention set a disturbing precedent for future US actions in the region.

The president noted that US support for the rule of Reza Shah Pehlavi and backing of Saddam Hussein further eroded trust between the two nations. Additionally, sweeping sanctions and unprovoked military aggression, including two instances of bombing during negotiations, have contributed to a deep-seated distrust of the US among the Iranian people.

Pezeshkian underscored the profound impact of ongoing military aggression and recent bombings on the lives, attitudes, and perspectives of the Iranian people, underscoring the need for a fundamental shift in US policy towards Iran.

In a scathing critique of the ongoing US-Israeli conflict with Iran, President Pezeshkian raised pointed questions about the true motivations behind US military action in the region, suggesting it’s a costly endeavor for both Iranians and Americans.
He posed a stark inquiry: “Was Iran’s supposed threat sufficient to justify such aggressive behavior?”
Pezeshkian also highlighted the devastating consequences of US actions, including the harm inflicted on innocent civilians and the destruction of vital medical facilities.
He further questioned the role of Israel in the conflict, suggesting that the US is fighting on behalf of its ally, driven by Israeli interests.
“Does Israel’s apparent desire to see Iran defeated at any cost – even if it means sacrificing American lives and resources – reveal a profound manipulation of US policy?”

US President Donald Trump has issued a veiled warning to European allies, indicating that he may withhold military aid to Ukraine unless they agree to participate in a coalition aimed at securing the Strait of Hormuz, according to sources privy to the discussions, as cited by the Financial Times. Trump’s ultimatum appears to be a direct result of his frustration with European countries, particularly those within NATO, which have been hesitant to support the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. This sentiment was echoed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who expressed disappointment over the lack of cooperation from NATO allies such as Spain, which had blocked the use of their airspace and military bases for the operation. Rubio cautioned that the US will reassess the value of its alliance with NATO following the conclusion of the war.

In a letter, President Pezeshkian underscored that Iranians hold no animosity towards the general populations of the United States, Europe, or their immediate neighbours.
Iranians have historically maintained a clear distinction between governments and the citizens they represent, a long-standing cultural and societal norm, not a fleeting political position, according to President Pezeshkian.

In a sudden shift in tone, Donald Trump has expressed his conviction that the war has reached a decisive conclusion, with the United States having successfully attained its military objectives. According to Trump, the country’s military prowess has been bolstered by the destruction of Iran’s naval and air forces, as well as its military superiority.

Key accomplishments cited by the US include the disruption of Iran’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone programs, which Trump views as significant victories. However, the one outstanding issue remains the matter of regime change, a goal that has been a longstanding objective of the US.

Trump’s recent statement on Truth Social, issued early in the morning, marked a notable departure from his previous characterization of Iran’s leaders as “madmen.” Instead, he described the new regime president as “much less Radicalized and far more intelligent” than his predecessors.

Notably, Trump has consistently emphasized his aversion to prolonged conflicts, having initially set a four-to-six-week window for the war. His decision to declare victory and withdraw now suggests that he is opting to walk away, claiming that the US has emerged triumphant.

According to a statement from the official Emirates News Agency (WAM) on X, a recent phone conversation between US President Donald Trump and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan centered on regional developments. This comes as WAM reported an earlier incident in which debris from a drone intercepted by authorities in Fujairah city’s al-Rifaa area struck a farm, resulting in the tragic loss of a Bangladeshi national.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called for a fundamental change in the approach towards Tehran, questioning the validity of US policy objectives and the pervasive dissemination of misinformation about his country.
In a pointed critique, Pezeshkian inquired whether the ‘America First’ mantra truly reflects the current priorities of the US administration.
He also implored Americans to form their own opinions about Iran by considering the experiences of those who have visited the nation, which boasts a population of approximately 90 million people, as well as the achievements of Iranian immigrants.
Pezeshkian noted that many Iranian expatriates, who were educated in Iran, now hold esteemed positions at leading universities worldwide or contribute to cutting-edge technology firms in the West. He asked whether these facts align with the distorted narratives about Iran and its people that Americans are being fed.
Pezeshkian characterized the current global situation as a critical juncture, arguing that continuing down a path of hostility towards Iran would be increasingly costly and ultimately futile.
He framed the choice between confrontation and engagement as a pivotal and far-reaching decision, warning that its outcome will have a profound impact on the future for generations to come.