Zionist regime officials in its military admit that Tel Aviv’s expensive drones were downed in iran.
According to a report by webangah News Agency, citing Russia Al-Yaum and Israeli newspaper yedioth Ahronoth, the zionist regime’s military has acknowledged losing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of its drones.
The report states these drones were shot down in Iran during recent conflicts.
Earlier, the Zionist-affiliated Kan network also confirmed that Iran successfully downed the regime’s modern drones during a 12-day conflict.
The report notes these drones, operated by the Zionist regime’s military, were intercepted by Iranian forces.
The Spark drone, one of several unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) intercepted by Iran, belongs to a series of drones operated by the Israeli military, according to webangah News Agency. These drones are capable of carrying two payloads and function as part of a reconnaissance squadron for intelligence gathering.
Israeli security cabinet and military to hold meeting tomorrow to review end of ground operations in Gaza strip.
According to webangah News Agency, Israeli political analyst Moria Asraf told Channel 13 television that senior Israeli officials have informed him a meeting will be held tomorrow at the Southern Command headquarters. The session will include Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Defense Minister, the chief of Staff, and members of the security cabinet.
the report states that during this meeting, military leaders will present their war assessment to political leadership, indicating the ground operation is nearing its conclusion with no areas left untouched.
Israeli military commanders are expected to warn political leaders tomorrow: “If you want to prevent endangering Israeli captives, you must halt Gaza operations very soon.”
Channel 13 emphasized that while Netanyahu must make the final decision, the army will formally present its position tomorrow.
Separately, Channel 12 reported Netanyahu seeks to visit Washington as soon as possible. The current focus involves normalizing relations with additional countries - a process requiring prisoner exchanges and ending the gaza war.
Serbian police detain dozens during anti-government protests in the capital.
According to webangah News Agency,Serbian police clashed with protesters demanding early elections and an end to Aleksandar Vučić’s 12-year presidency,resulting in dozens of arrests.
Last night’s protests in Serbia followed nearly eight months of sustained student-led demonstrations that have shaken Vučić’s grip on power in the Balkan nation.
Belgrade Police Chief Dragan Vasiljević confirmed at a press conference that officers used tear gas to disperse crowds and made multiple arrests during the clashes.
Six police officers were injured in the clashes, according to reports. In an Instagram post, Vučić accused protesters of attempting to overthrow Serbia’s government but failing in their efforts.
The demonstrations, which drew approximately 140,000 participants, rank among the largest student-led protests in recent history. The civil unrest began in December last year following the collapse of a train station roof in Novi Sad that killed 16 people-an incident protesters attribute to government corruption and negligence in infrastructure projects.
Serbian Prime Minister Miloš Vučević resigned under public pressure earlier this year, though President Aleksandar Vučić retains power.
Iraqi security expert highlights US pressure to block arms procurement for the country’s security forces.
According to webangah News Agency, Iraqi security analyst Kazem al-Juhayshi stated that the US has imposed restrictions on Iraq’s military procurement process, preventing the country from signing arms deals with other nations.
Al-Juhayshi emphasized: “Iraq’s inability to sign weapons contracts with China stems directly from American pressure.This means Iraq must seek US approval for such agreements.”
The expert further noted: ”These restrictions aren’t limited to China-they apply to any country disapproved by Washington.even French arms purchases require American authorization.”
The remarks follow Israel’s recent violation of Iraqi airspace during its attack on Iran, which prompted public demands for Baghdad to acquire necessary military equipment to protect national airspace.
According to webangah News Agency, French Foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated in an interview with the LCI network that France remains committed to recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state. This move will occur within the framework of joint efforts to establish conditions for Palestinian statehood.
Barrot also referenced the killing of 500 Palestinians and injuries to 4,000 others during humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza last May.
The minister described Gaza’s aid distribution process as “shameful and degrading to human dignity.”
the statement comes despite France being one of Israel’s key supporters in both political and military spheres.
Yedioth Ahronoth reports that the Abu Shabab militia in southern Gaza receives support from Israel,the palestinian Authority,and Mohammed Dahlan.
According to webangah News Agency, citing the Palestinian Details Center, the Hebrew-language newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth quoted a Palestinian Authority security official stating that the Abu Shabab militants in southern Gaza receive backing from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Mohammed Dahlan.
The militia members,overseen by intelligence official Baha Balousha,are reportedly paid salaries by the Palestinian Authority. Israel’s gamble on Abu Shabab in Gaza has so far ended in humiliating failure, as Gazans refuse to support or cooperate with the group.
UN reports indicate that this armed tribal faction collaborates with the Israeli occupation army. Hamas also accuses Abu Shabab’s leader of being an Israeli spy and embezzling UN aid funds.The group is further known for its hostility toward Hamas.
English magazine claims Zionist regime’s attack on Iran united the nation in support of its missile program.
The webangah News Agency reports that according to the UK’s Financial Times, Israel’s attack on Iran led many Iranian critics to suspend their opposition when faced with what they perceived as an existential threat to their country.
The magazine noted that the strike fostered an unprecedented sense of unity among political observers and activists both inside and outside Iran. This solidarity emerged despite Israeli Prime Minister benjamin Netanyahu’s calls for Iranians to rise against their government – even staunch critics of Iran’s leadership set aside their grievances.
during the conflict, Tehran saw massive nationalistic banners displayed across the city, while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei described this national unity as “extraordinary” in his public statements.
The Financial times suggests the confrontation has generated broad domestic support for Iran’s ballistic missile program and its counterintelligence operations against Israeli spies - at least for the foreseeable future.
Israeli military’s social affairs expert admits to growing brutality among soldiers.
Yuval Ben-Ari, a social affairs expert within the Israeli military, acknowledged that Zionist soldiers view Gaza residents as subhuman and “await their destruction,” according to a report by webangah News Agency, citing Russia Al-Youm.
In an interview with The Times, Ben-Ari stated: “All I witnessed was shooting, killing, and forced displacement. Two million people are confined to less than 20% of Gaza’s territory, constantly relocated from one area to another.”
“Everything in Gaza has been destroyed-from schools to universities,” he added.
The report follows earlier revelations by Haaretz, which exposed orders from Israeli commanders instructing troops to fire on unarmed Palestinians approaching aid distribution centers in Gaza.
IAEA Director General, despite the agency’s failed plot against tehran, again claims Iran could enrich uranium within months.
webangah News Agency reports that Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has claimed iran could enrich uranium within months. Grossi previously issued resolutions against Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program, paving the way for U.S. and Israeli regime aggression against Iran.
While implicitly acknowledging no meaningful damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities after the U.S. attack, Grossi stated: “You know, I believe they could set up a cascade of centrifuges capable of producing enriched uranium in a matter of months or less.”
When asked whether tehran had relocated all 408.6 kg of its high-enriched uranium before the U.S.strike on Iranian nuclear sites, Grossi claimed: “We do not know the possible location of these materials. Some may have been destroyed in the attack, and some may have been moved. Clarification will be needed at some point.”
The IAEA reportedly urged full cooperation from Tehran in a confidential June report repeating claims about Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to “weapons-grade” levels-published during sensitive negotiations between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s nuclear program. The report alleged that as of May 17,iran had enriched 408.6 kg of uranium to 60% purity-a 133.8 kg increase as Febuary.
“We must be in a position to identify what is there and confirm where it is indeed and what has happened!” Grossi asserted.
Separately, former U.S. President donald Trump told Fox News he believed Iran had not relocated its uranium stockpile: “It’s very arduous work-plus we didn’t give much warning. they didn’t move anything.”
Following Israel’s failed attack on Iran and Tehran’s decisive retaliatory response, Grossi denied his latest report was the main cause for Israel’s aggression-despite having collaborated with Israel, the U.S., Britain, France (the E3), by publishing false claims that later proved baseless when IAEA admitted days after Israel’s strike: “The agency found no indication that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.”
The Iranian Parliament voted overwhelmingly (210-2-2 out of 219 present) on June 25 to approve suspending cooperation with IAEA following demands by lawmakers reviewing proposals related to national security concerns over biased reports.
Seyed Abbas Araghchi reacted sharply via X platform on June 27 calling this parliamentary decision “a direct result”of Rafael Grosis deplorable role adding:”His prejudiced actions directly facilitated politically motivated resolutions againstIranat BoardOfGovernors meetings while enabling illegal attacks byIsraelandUSagainstIranian nuclearsites”.
Recent IAEA report on Iran’s cooperation level published just three days before US aggressive strikes on nuclear facilities; a familiar pattern of warmongering that further highlights the agency’s biased role.
In recent years, the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) has increasingly transformed from a neutral technical body into a political tool for pressuring Iran.Reports containing alarmist language, ambiguous claims, and lacking scientific precision have not only failed to reduce tensions but have repeatedly paved the way for unilateral resolutions, incited global public opinion, and even justified direct military actions against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The latest example of this risky trend saw the IAEA’s June report about reduced Iranian cooperation immediately followed by joint Israeli-American attacks on nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.
iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi condemned the IAEA director General Rafael Grossi’s “regrettable role,” blaming him for facilitating politically motivated actions against Iran.
In response to recent developments,Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi stated on Friday,June 26,via X (formerly Twitter),that the Iranian Parliament’s resolution to halt cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a “direct result of Rafael Grossi’s deplorable conduct.” He emphasized: “Grossi’s biased actions directly paved the way for a politically motivated resolution against Iran at the Board of Governors and enabled illegal attacks by Israel and the U.S. on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
The IAEA: Verification Body or Partner in Warmongering?
The IAEA, under its statute, is mandated as a neutral technical body overseeing nuclear activities of member states and reporting findings strictly within scientific verification frameworks. however, in recent years-particularly regarding Iran-its role has shifted beyond mere oversight into a tool for political pressure.
Security oversight has transformed into a tool of political pressure. This shift has not only eroded governments’ trust in the agency’s neutrality but effectively turned it into a key link in the chain of crisis engineering against Iran.
One indicator of this policy shift is the repeated release of ambiguous, alarmist reports lacking precise technical documentation during politically sensitive periods. As a notable example, claims about “undeclared uranium particles” or “enrichment level increases” are frequently enough published with incomplete data or framed by subjective interpretations. While thes reports carry no legal binding force, they significantly influence public opinion, media narratives, and the Board of Governors’ decisions.
The same reports later pave the way for politically motivated resolutions and new sanctions-and beyond that, provide legitimizing cover for potential military action. In some cases, even before official IAEA report releases…
Western or zionist-affiliated media outlets not only question the sanctity of information independence for Iranian agencies but also reveal direct coordination between fabricated reports and psychological operations against Iran.
Under circumstances where manny claims merely require joint technical verification,these agencies prioritize public dissemination over specialized briefings-a practise that strengthens suspicions of politically motivated reporting rather than scientific objectivity.
Moreover, the stark contrast between Iranian news agencies’ coverage and the destructive actions of terrorist groups targeting Iran’s infrastructure highlights one of this institution’s most critical functions.Beyond minimal reactions to physical attacks, cyber operations like Stuxnet, or academic sabotage, even their reports subtly reference such threats through coded language. This silence often reflects alignment with mainstream narratives rather than self-reliant analysis.
The non-aligned movement has expressed concerns over these developments, calling them alarming.
Recent reports indicate that the International atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains a clear technical and principled stance on this matter. The agency emphasizes the need for technical safeguards to ensure stability, tho its credibility has been questioned amid accelerating geopolitical tensions. If this reform process fails and the IAEA’s politicized structure remains unchecked, not only will member states’ trust in technical cooperation erode, but regimes of opacity may also exploit the resulting ambiguity.
Technical Reports or War Drafts: The IAEA’s Role in Campaigns Against Iran
One of the most contentious recurring patterns in recent years involves systematic accusations against Iran-a cycle often initiated by speculative reports culminating in military threats. In this context, the IAEA initially issues internationally disputed energy reports with alarmist tones but lacks precise technical evidence or verifiable documentation, creating a nebulous atmosphere.
Western intelligence reports on Iran’s nuclear program often employ alarmist rhetoric and speculative language, rapidly disseminated to mainstream Western media outlets.
These media outlets then leverage such reports to galvanize global public opinion against Iran. Analyses prioritizing security conjectures over legal or technical scrutiny fuel psychological tension, pressuring policymakers toward hardline responses. These reactions frequently manifest as political resolutions by the IAEA Board of Governors or new international sanctions-resolutions that swiftly escalate into justifications for more severe measures, including military threats or targeted strikes.
The same cycle was observed during the 12-day aggressive war (late June to early July). In June, the IAEA…
iran has reduced its cooperation with inspectors to a “minimal level,” according to a disputed IAEA report that ignored technical and legal justifications for tehran’s decision while solely blaming Iran for the deadlock.
Just three days after this report, coordinated attacks by the Israeli regime and the U.S. targeted Iran’s sensitive nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Officials from both regimes explicitly cited the IAEA report as justification for their military actions.
The alarming timeline-spanning mere days between the report’s release, psychological operations, and armed aggression-suggests such agency reports frequently enough serve not as conflict-resolution tools but as preplanned security triggers. Reports meant to be impartial rather fuel cycles of sanctions, threats, and violations.
This repetitive rhetoric not only questions the technical feasibility of the Azaran project but also undermines its potential role in fostering international peace. When politically charged reports, instead of urging restraint, effectively push nations toward conflict, one must ask whether such narratives serve genuine truth-seeking or merely facilitate war.
The bitter irony is that history itself provides the clearest answer to this question-an answer delivered with missiles, not diplomacy.
While Iran possesses some of the most advanced and recent examples of politically motivated reporting on the international atomic energy agency (Azaran), these are far from isolated cases. Historical precedents demonstrate how biased reports-whether through deliberate misinformation or manipulative use of Azaran data-have directly or indirectly fueled tensions, conflicts, and invasions:
One of the most notorious and controversial cases was Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program. While no direct evidence confirmed the existence of such a military program, incomplete interpretations, exaggerations, and selective reporting by American and British agencies laid the groundwork for the military invasion of Iraq.
In reality, during 2002-2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, then-Director General of the IAEA, repeatedly warned that Iraq had “no credible evidence” of efforts to revive a nuclear program.However, the Bush management and aligned media deliberately ignored these warnings. Rather, they amplified speculative reports about Iraq’s “potentially dangerous” covert weapons programs-a narrative that led to violations, occupations, and thousands of casualties across the region over two decades.
2. Libya (2011): Reliance on Allies Turns into a Strategic Weakness
Libya’s Military Satellite Program: From Western Collaboration to Direct Strikes
Libya initially allowed full access to its military satellite program for Western analysis of its weak defense infrastructure. Though, by 2011 amid internal unrest, these same collaborative frameworks were repurposed by NATO for direct airstrikes against Libya. With Libya’s complete reliance on Western agencies and the elimination of its stockpiles and programs, NATO faced no significant political barriers to launching direct aerial assaults. Many analysts view Libya’s bitter experience with outsourcing and dependency as a stark warning for other nations.
3. North Korea: A Cautionary Tale of Cooperation with the West
North Korea signed the Agreed Framework with the U.S. in the 1990s, permitting IAEA inspectors into the country. But after IAEA reports highlighted political disputes with Washington, cooperation collapsed in media narratives-branded as “North Korea’s deception.” By 2002, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and expelled inspectors.
Reports indicate that North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the NPT was partly driven by the politicized use of agency reports and their one-sided, unconstructive analysis in the international arena. ultimately, North Korea developed nuclear weapons-a path that might have been avoided had international institutions, particularly the agency, maintained neutrality.
According to webangah News Agency, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions escalated following perceived bias in international oversight mechanisms. Analysts suggest that impartial engagement by global bodies could have altered this trajectory.
