Iran Threatens to Annihilate Israel Should it Launch Major Attack

Abdollahian speaks to foreign diplomats hours after the Iranian response to Israel on April 14 (Iranian Foreign Ministry)
Abdollahian speaks to foreign diplomats hours after the Iranian response to Israel on April 14 (Iranian Foreign Ministry)
TT

Iran Threatens to Annihilate Israel Should it Launch Major Attack

Abdollahian speaks to foreign diplomats hours after the Iranian response to Israel on April 14 (Iranian Foreign Ministry)
Abdollahian speaks to foreign diplomats hours after the Iranian response to Israel on April 14 (Iranian Foreign Ministry)

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi has vowed to annihilate Israel should it launch a major attack on Iran.

Raisi’s threats came Tuesday on the same day Tehran protested the European Union decision to expand sanctions and restrictive measures on Iran’s weapons.

The Iranian President said an Israeli attack on Iranian territory could radically change dynamics and result in there being nothing left of the “Zionist regime,” according to Reuters.

Raisi began a three-day visit to Pakistan on Monday and has vowed to boost trade between the neighboring nations to $10 billion a year.

The two neighbors are seeking to mend ties after unprecedented tit-for-tat military strikes this year.

On Tuesday, Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian posted on X, “It is regrettable to see the EU deciding quickly to apply more unlawful restrictions against Iran just because Iran exercised its right to self-defense in the face of Israel’s reckless aggression.”

“The EU should not follow Washington’s advice to satisfy the criminal Israeli regime,” he added, according to AFP.

This comes one day after EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell declared that the bloc has agreed in principle to expand sanctions on Iran by agreeing to extend restrictive measures on Tehran's weapons exports of any drone or missile to Iranian proxies and Russia.

The new EU sanctions came nearly 10 days after Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel, involving hundreds of drones and missiles, though almost all were shot down by Israel and its allies.

The Iranian barrage was in response to a deadly April 1 airstrike, widely blamed on Israel, that levelled Iran's consulate in Damascus and killed seven Revolutionary Guards members, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a top commander in Syria and Lebanon.

Amid fears of a major Israeli retaliation to that attack, which could itself provoke another Iranian response, Israel instead chose a much more limited option in the face of US pressure.

Israel, in line with its usual policy, has not confirmed or denied carrying out the strike on Iran or the April 1 attack in Syria.

Its apparent strike was deliberately limited in scope but sent a clear warning to Iran’s leadership about Israeli abilities to strike at sensitive targets.

On Monday, The New York Times, which cited Israeli and Iranian sources, said the target was the radar system of a Russian-supplied S-300 missile defense system at an airbase in the central province of Isfahan, the region that hosts the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

The origin of the strike is not entirely clear, but it included at least one missile fired from a warplane outside Iran and small attack drones known as quadcopters that could have been launched from inside Iran itself and were aimed at confusing air defenses, the reports said.

For decades the two countries have waged a shadow war marked by covert Israeli operations inside Iran, and Iranian backing for anti-Israel militant groups including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iranian officials have been at pains to almost laugh off the Israeli strike, with Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian telling NBC News the weapons used were at the “level of toys.”

But Alexander Grinberg, expert on Iran at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said Israel's choice and designation of target was in itself indicative of the presence Mossad has inside Iran.

“Israel's message is 'We can strike anywhere in Iran' given that Isfahan is in the centre of Iran, relatively far away, and Israel knows exactly where it can strike,” he said.

Grinberg said it was logical that Iran has not confirmed that the air base was hit: “From the moment you recognise the true scale of damage, you admit the power of the enemy.”

While the current escalation phase appears to be over, Israel could yet launch more retaliation against Iran, and tensions may also surge again if Israel launches its long-threatened offensive on Rafah in Gaza.



South Korean Opposition Submits Motion to Impeach Country's Acting President

South Korea's acting President Han Duck-soo speaks at the government complex in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec. 26, 2024. (Choi Jae-koo/Yonhap via AP)
South Korea's acting President Han Duck-soo speaks at the government complex in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec. 26, 2024. (Choi Jae-koo/Yonhap via AP)
TT

South Korean Opposition Submits Motion to Impeach Country's Acting President

South Korea's acting President Han Duck-soo speaks at the government complex in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec. 26, 2024. (Choi Jae-koo/Yonhap via AP)
South Korea's acting President Han Duck-soo speaks at the government complex in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec. 26, 2024. (Choi Jae-koo/Yonhap via AP)

South Korea’s main opposition party submitted a motion on Thursday to impeach the country’s acting leader over his reluctance to fill three Constitutional Court vacancies ahead of the court’s review of rebellion charges against impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol stemming from his short-lived martial law decree on Dec. 3.
The court appointments have stalled amid an intensifying dispute between the liberal opposition and Yoon’s conservative party, and the potential impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo may deepen the political paralysis that has halted high-level diplomacy and rattled financial markets, The Associated Press reported.
The opposition-controlled National Assembly also passed motions calling for the appointment of three Constitutional Court justices as the court prepares to start deliberations on whether to dismiss or reinstate Yoon. The vote came shortly after Han reiterated in a televised statement that he wouldn’t appoint the justices without bipartisan consent.
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik urged Han to swiftly appoint the justices, saying that his calls for bipartisan consent essentially amounted to a refusal and “infringes on the National Assembly’s right to select Constitutional Court justices.”
Yoon’s People Power Party, whose members mostly boycotted the National Assembly vote, argued that Han shouldn’t exercise presidential authority to appoint the proposed justices while Yoon has yet to be formally removed from office.
The main opposition Democratic Party has accused the conservatives of undermining the court process to save Yoon’s presidency, and its motion to impeach Han could go to a floor vote as early as Friday. The Democrats’ floor leader, Park Chan-dae, said Han’s comments showed “he lacks both the qualifications to serve as the acting leader and the will to uphold the Constitution.”
Yoon’s presidential powers were suspended after the National Assembly voted to impeach him on Dec. 14 over an attempted power grab that lasted only hours but has triggered weeks of political turmoil that has shaken one of Asia’s most robust democracies.
To formally end Yoon’s presidency, at least six justices on the nine-member Constitutional Court must vote in favor. Three seats remain vacant following retirements and a full bench could make conviction more likely.
The court, which is to hold a pretrial hearing in Yoon’s case on Friday, has said it believes the acting president can exercise the right to appoint justices.
Three of the court’s nine justices are directly appointed by the president. Three are nominated by the head of the Supreme Court and three by the National Assembly, and they are then formally appointed by the president in what is widely considered a procedural matter.
The three seats that are currently open are to be nominated by lawmakers. South Korea’s Constitution states that the National Assembly “selects” three spots on the court rather than recommends, suggesting that the presidential appointments for these spots are a formality rather than a substantive authority, according to some legal experts.
“The consistent spirit reflected in our Constitution and laws is that an acting president should focus on maintaining stability in governance to help the country overcome crisis while refraining from exercising significant powers exclusive to the president, including appointments to constitutional institutions,” Han said. “I will withhold the appointment of Constitutional Court justices until the ruling and opposition parties submit an agreed-upon proposal.”
Han has also clashed with the Democrats over his vetoes of bills calling for independent investigations of Yoon and corruption allegations involving his wife, Kim Keon Hee.
If Han is impeached, Choi Sang-mok, the country’s deputy prime minister and finance minister, is next in line.
The impeachment vote against Han could face legal ambiguities. Most South Korean officials can be impeached with a simple majority of the National Assembly, but impeaching presidents requires two-thirds. The rival parties differ on which standard should apply to an acting president. The Democratic Party controls 170 of the National Assembly’s 300 seats, so it would need support from members of other parties including Yoon’s own to get a two-thirds majority.
While focusing on defending himself in the Constitutional Court, Yoon has dodged several requests by law enforcement authorities to appear for questioning over rebellion charges and also blocked searches of his office.
Authorities have already arrested Yoon’s defense minister, police chief and several other military commanders involved in the attempt to implement martial law, which harkened back to the days of authoritarian leaders the country hasn’t seen since the 1980s.
In a news conference in Seoul, Yoo Seung Soo, lawyer for former Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, repeated Yoon’s claim that his martial law decree was to “sound alarm against ... political abuse” by an opposition that has bogged down his agenda, and did not amount to a rebellion.