missile

What looks to be a new Chinese road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) dubbed the DF-61, or at least a transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) for it, has emerged amid last-minute preparations for a massive military parade in Beijing. There have been reports for some time now that China has been developing next-generation ICBMs, including a successor to its road-mobile DF-41 ICBM, as part of a larger buildup of its nuclear deterrent arsenal.

Imagery showing 16-wheeled TELs loaded at least with canisters marked DF-61 (whether or not there is an actual missile inside is unknown) is now beginning to circulate online. It is currently early morning on September 3 in Beijing. Preparations for the imminent parade, which will mark the 80th anniversary of the country’s victory over Japan in World War II, have been going on for months now, and various new capabilities have already emerged.

No hard details have yet to emerge about the DF-61, and it is unknown at this time whether or not it is said to be in service. A point of reference, the DF-41 was first shown to the public at another major parade in 2019, but its development is understood to have started before 2000, and it had reportedly begun entering operational service in 2017. The DF-41 is some 20 meters long, has an estimated range of between 12,000 and 15,000 kilometers, and can be loaded with up to 10 multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads, according to the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank.

A story last year from The Washington Times said that references to a DF-41 successor, referred to at that time variously as the DF-45 and DF-51, have appeared on the Chinese web since at least 2020. That piece came after U.S. Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, reportedly told members of Congress that China was developing a “new generation of mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles” at a closed-door hearing.

“Sometimes called the DF-45 or DF-51, it is clearly intended to outperform the DF-41,” Rick Fisher, a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center think tank, told The Washington Times at that time. “Such an ICBM would not be much larger than a DF-41 to preclude a road-mobile version.”

Fisher also told The Washington Times that China had the capacity to build larger TELs if the DF-45/DF-51 were to be significantly larger than the DF-41. However, as it stands now, the DF-61 looks to be broadly in line size-wise with the DF-41, with both using 16-wheeled TELs.

“The DF-45 would have a takeoff weight of 112 tons and a payload weighing 3.6 tons and be armed with seven 650-kiloton warheads. The new missile’s estimated range would be 7,456 to 9,320 miles,” The Washington Times also reported, though the sourcing behind these details is unclear.

“There are other reports of a DF-51. For example, there is a passing reference to it in a 2006 article in a Hong Kong publication. One report indicates that: 1) its launch-weight is 130-tons, 2) it can carry three five-megaton MIRVs , and 3) it can carry China’s Fractional Orbital Bombardment System,” according to a seprate 2024 report from the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) think tank. “Another report says it has a range of 15,000-km and can carry 14 warheads. The U.K.’s Teleraph.com says 10 warheads. Both ten and 14 relatively light warheads are reasonable numbers for a missile more capable than the DF-41.”

NIPP’s report also noted that “it is unclear whether the DF-45/DF-51 is one or two systems” and that, “if it is two systems, one might be a replacement for the DF-41 and the other for the DF-5.” The newly emerged DF-61 could still be just one of several all-new ICBM designs China has been working on.

What is well known is that China has been investing heavily in recent years in expanding its ICBM arsenal, including the construction of vast new fields of silos, as a part of a larger nuclear build-up. What looks to be a new silo-specific variant of the existing DF-31 ICBM, the DF-31BJ, is also included in today’s parade.

“The PLARF [People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force] is advancing its long-term modernization plans to enhance its ‘strategic deterrence’ capabilities,” the Pentagon had noted in the unclassified version of an annual report on Chinese military developments that it sent to Congress in December 2024. “The PRC is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that will significantly improve its nuclear-capable missile forces and will require increased nuclear warhead production.”

“Over the next decade, the PRC [People’s Republic of China] probably will continue to modernize, diversify, and expand its nuclear forces rapidly. The PLA seeks a larger and more diverse nuclear force, comprised of systems ranging from low-yield precision strike missiles to ICBMs with multi-megaton yields to provide it multiple options on the escalation ladder,” that report added. “In 2023, Beijing continued its rapid nuclear expansion. DoD estimates the PRC has surpassed 600 operational nuclear warheads in its stockpile as of mid-2024 and will have over 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030, much of which will be deployed at higher readiness levels. The PRC will continue growing its force through at least 2035.”

The DF-61 is just one of a number of major unveilings still expected to come at the parade today. As already noted, many new capabilities, including a number of new air combat drone designs and previously unseen high-speed strike missiles, have already broken cover during the months-long preparations for today’s event.

If nothing else, we now know the official nomenclature of at least one new ICBM design China has been working on.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

The missile attack comes amid Houthi pledges to target Israel-linked shipping over its ongoing war in Gaza.

Yemen’s Houthi movement has claimed responsibility for a missile attack on a tanker in the Red Sea, days after Israeli air strikes killed its prime minister and several senior officials.

The group on Monday said it directly hit the Liberian-flagged Scarlet Ray, which is Israeli-owned, according to the maritime security company Ambrey.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency, which monitors shipping in the region, disputed the claim, reporting the missile missed its target on Sunday.

“The crew witnessed a splash in close proximity to their vessel from an unknown projectile and heard a loud bang,” UKMTO said, adding all staff were unharmed and the tanker had resumed its voyage.

The attack is the latest in a string of Houthi operations in the Red Sea. The group sank two tankers in July and has pledged to continue targeting Israel-linked shipping as part of its declared support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

On Saturday, the Houthis announced that Prime Minister Ahmed Ghaleb al-Rahawi and other top officials had been assassinated in Israeli strikes on Thursday. A funeral for the prime minister and other slain officials is scheduled on Monday.

Houthi leader Abdel-Malik al-Houthi hailed them as “martyrs of all Yemen” and accused Israel of “savagery” against civilians. “The crime of targeting ministers and civilian officials is added to the criminal record of the Israeli enemy in the region,” he said.

Tensions escalated further on Sunday when Houthi fighters raided United Nations offices and detained at least 11 staff members, accusing them of espionage.

The UN has rejected the allegations and called for their “immediate and unconditional release”. The group is already holding 23 other UN employees, some since 2021.

In May, Oman brokered a ceasefire between the United States and the Houthis, leading Washington to halt its daily bombing campaign in Yemen. However, Houthi chief negotiator Mohammed Abdulsalam said the agreement does not cover operations against Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to retaliate, warning the Houthis they will “pay a heavy price” for attacks on Israeli territory and shipping.

The Houthis, who control much of northern Yemen, have launched dozens of drone and missile strikes against Israel and its allies since October, disrupting international trade through the Red Sea.

Kim Jong Un’s visit comes ahead of planned trip to China to attend military parade with Xi Jinping.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has inspected a new missile production line and missile-manufacturing automation process, according to state media.

His visit on Sunday to the missile production line came ahead of a planned trip to Beijing to attend a military parade along with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

North Korea is under heavy international sanctions imposed over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes, which were developed in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Experts and international officials say the sanctions have lost much of their bite amid growing economic, military and political support from Russia and China.

Kim said that the modernised production process would help increase major missile units’ combat readiness, the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Monday.

North Korea has sent soldiers, artillery ammunition and missiles to Russia to support Moscow in its war against Ukraine.

North Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticised US cooperation with Japan and South Korea, singling out a recent trilateral joint statement that warned of cybersecurity threats from Pyongyang.

The ministry “strongly denounces and rejects” the United States, Japan and South Korea for using cyberspace as a “theatre of geopolitical confrontation and hostile propaganda”, a spokesperson said in a statement carried by KCNA.

“The more the US persists in its anachronistic and malicious hostile acts against the DPRK through the intensified collaboration with its satellite countries, the more distrust and hostility will be piled up between the DPRK and the US,” the spokesperson added, using the initials of North Korea’s official name.

The United Kingdom is seeking a new battlefield ballistic missile, a class of weapon that it last fielded back in the Cold War. The Nightfall program reflects expanding interest in long-range precision strike systems, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe more broadly, spurred by Russian aggression and its own expanding missile arsenal.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense yesterday published a request for information (RFI) for the missile, providing details of what is required. At this stage, the Nightfall program is in the “open early engagement” phase, with the ministry judging interest from potential suppliers, ahead of a firm procurement decision.

The key performance parameter of having a range of greater than 600 kilometers (373 miles) puts it in the category of a short-range ballistic missile, a class of weapon that can reach out to between 300 and 1,000 kilometers (186 and 621 miles). There is a stated requirement for each launcher to deliver at least two “effectors,” each of which should weigh around 300 kilograms (661 pounds), based on a high-explosive payload. There is no mention of any other types of warheads being required. The wording makes it clear that the two or more effectors requirement relates to each launcher, rather than each missile. It should be noted that, while the RFI uses the broad term “effectors,” it also specifically refers to the requirement for a ballistic missile.

The range figure puts the missile well beyond the reach of the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), for example, a short-range ballistic missile which has a stated maximum range of 300 kilometers (186 miles). While ATACMS has been exported, the United Kingdom is not an operator.

For its new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), another short-range ballistic missile, the U.S. Army has outlined plans for incremental development that will increase its range from 500 kilometers (311 miles) to 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), with plans to extend this even further in the future.

As well as its basic ballistic trajectory, there is a demand for “some basic maneuverability,” suggesting that the United Kingdom might favor a weapon capable of being used on a depressed quasi-ballistic trajectory. This mode of launch renders a ballistic missile more capable of significant maneuvering in flight, presenting major challenges even for opponents with more robust missile defense capabilities.

As for the launcher, this is required to be a mobile platform, capable of operating in “a high threat tactical environment,” suggesting that a good degree of mobility and at least some armored protection are required. It also specifies that the launcher has a low multispectral signature, making it harder for enemy sensors to detect. All missiles are required to be fired from the launcher within 15 minutes of stopping at a launch location. After launch, the launcher must be able to rapidly leave the area, ideally within five minutes.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense wants the missile to be able to navigate in a GPS-denied environment and strike within five meters (16 feet) of a provided GPS coordinate 50 percent of the time. The missile is required to have a fast flight time, able to strike targets within 10 minutes of launch.

The ministry’s document provides relatively extensive information on resistance to jamming and other types of interference, likely reflecting lessons from the war in Ukraine. Here, Russian forces have reportedly been using electronic warfare systems to good effect against GPS-assisted guidance packages used on a variety of air and ground-launched munitions that Ukraine has received from the United States and other Western partners. Similarly, the ability of standoff precision-guided weapons to still operate effectively in the face of heavy electronic warfare jamming is also an area of considerable interest to the U.S. military.

In the Baltic region, Russia’s employment of jamming systems, likely to try to protect critical facilities and assets from long-range Ukrainian drone attacks, has become so pronounced that it is now having serious and potentially dangerous impacts on commercial aviation:

With this in mind, the U.K. Ministry of Defense states that it wants a missile that is “resilient in a complex electromagnetic environment (EME), including within a GNSS [Global Navigation Satellite System] denied and degraded environment, and resistant against targeted electronic warfare attack and spoofing.”

Another area of great interest right now, as regards precision standoff munitions, is the ability to procure effectors of this kind at relatively low cost and to scale up production, when required, to meet the demands of high-end contingencies.

These factors are also reflected in the U.K. requirement, which calls for a minimum production output of 10 missiles per month, if required, with the option to further scale this up. A remarkably low price of £500,000 ($675,000) for each missile is presented as the goal, although this excludes the warhead, launcher, and any development costs. This contrasts with a reported cost of between $1 million and $1.5 million for each ATACMS missile, depending on the variant (although this includes the warhead).

The U.K. Ministry of Defense wants these capabilities to be packaged and ready for at least five all-up units to be delivered for trials within nine to 12 months.

At this stage, it appears that a sovereign solution is also preferred, with the system required to be “ideally […] free from foreign government trade and usage restrictions, such as export control.” There is also a requirement for further growth potential to be available from the start, including the option to increase the range, accuracy, in-flight maneuverability, and more. The combination of a sovereign weapon and a notably low cost point, per unit, would also point to the potential to export this weapon.

It is significant that the U.K. Armed Forces are looking for a new ballistic missile at this stage, having last fielded the U.S.-made Lance, a mobile field artillery tactical missile during the Cold War. With a range of less than 100 miles, this was primarily a nuclear-delivery system for the Central Front battlefield.

Now, driven primarily by concerns about the Russian threat, the United Kingdom is looking at the potential of various new missile systems and has even decided to reinstate an air-launched nuclear capability, albeit using U.S.-owned weapons.

Earlier this year, the United Kingdom and Germany announced they would jointly produce a “deep precision strike” weapon with a range of over 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles, considerably more than specified in the Nightfall program. At this point, it’s unclear whether a ballistic or cruise missile — or perhaps both types — will be the preferred solution for the longer-range requirement.

However, the project reflects growing ambitions among European NATO members to field long-range strike capabilities, faced by a growing Russian threat on the alliance’s eastern flank.

With Russia continuing to make extensive use of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine, the United Kingdom and other European NATO members are increasingly concerned about a major gap in their inventories when it comes to standoff precision-guided munitions.

As TWZ has pointed out before, among European NATO members, only Turkey possesses a conventional ground-launched missile with a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles). This is the locally developed Bora short-range ballistic missile.

In contrast, Russia has fielded or is developing multiple ground-launched ballistic and cruise missile systems that match this kind of performance, and which are able to carry conventional or nuclear warheads. This is before taking into account Russia’s air-launched and maritime long-range strike capabilities, which also vastly outmatch their NATO counterparts in Europe.

As there was in the Cold War, there is a growing demand among NATO members in Europe to develop a deterrent to Russian tactical nuclear missiles, which are being fielded in increasingly advanced and long-reaching forms, including in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. However, at this stage, there is no indication that either of the aforementioned British missile programs envisages using a nuclear warhead, although this could conceivably be introduced, including on Nightfall, at a later stage.

Meanwhile, the United States has announced that it will deploy to Germany, on a rotational basis, starting next year, a range of advanced ground-launched weapons. These include the SM-6 multi-purpose missile and Tomahawk cruise missile, as well as “developmental hypersonic weapons.” The latter is a reference to the Dark Eagle and potentially others, like the Operational Fires (OpFires) ground-launched hypersonic missile system and the aforementioned PrSM short-range ballistic missile.

Developing a new ballistic missile that fulfills the outlined requirements within the United Kingdom, and without recourse to licensed production, may be a challenge. After all, it’s been many decades since the country was developing and producing these kinds of weapons.

It is also worth noting that the U.K. Royal Navy has outlined plans to adapt its two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to fire undisclosed long-range missiles from their decks.

In the past, we suggested that the most likely option for the Royal Navy would involve launching a cruise missile from the carrier, perhaps even a hypersonic weapon. Nevertheless, a ballistic missile is also a possibility, albeit less likely.

It’s unclear at this point what sort of range requirement the Royal Navy is seeking, and what kinds of targets the missiles should prosecute.

As for the British Nightfall effort to develop a new ballistic missile, this points once more to a growing focus on long-range fire capabilities in Europe and, depending on its ultimate range and potential warhead options, it might ultimately have a significant effect on the military balance on the continent.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Islamabad, Pakistan – India on August 20 announced that it had successfully test-fired Agni-V, its intermediate-range ballistic missile, from a test range in Odisha on its eastern Bay of Bengal coast.

The Agni-V, meaning “fire” in Sanskrit, is 17.5 metres long, weighs 50,000kg, and can carry more than 1,000kg of nuclear or conventional payload. Capable of travelling more than 5,000km at hypersonic speeds of nearly 30,000km per hour, it is among the fastest ballistic missiles in the world.

The Agni test came exactly a week after Pakistan announced the formation of a new Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC), aimed, say experts, at plugging holes in its defensive posture exposed by India during the four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.

But experts say the latest Indian test might be a message less for Pakistan and more for another neighbour that New Delhi is cautiously warming up to again: China.

The Agni’s range puts most of Asia, including China’s northern regions, and parts of Europe within reach. This was the missile’s 10th test since 2012 and its first since March last year, but its timing, say analysts, was significant.

It came just ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, amid a thaw in ties – after years of tension over their disputed border – that has been accelerated by United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war against India. On Wednesday, the US tariffs on Indian goods doubled to 50 percent amid tensions over New Delhi’s oil purchases from Russia.

Yet despite that shift in ties with Beijing, India continues to view China as its primary threat in the neighbourhood, say experts, underscoring the complex relationship between the world’s two most populous nations. And it’s at China that India’s development of medium and long-range missiles is primarily aimed, they say.

India’s missile advantage over Pakistan

While India acknowledged losing an unspecified number of fighter jets during the May skirmish with Pakistan, it also inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military bases, particularly with its supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.

The BrahMos, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads of up to 300kg, has a range of about 500km. Its low altitude, terrain-hugging trajectory and blistering speed make it difficult to intercept, allowing it to penetrate Pakistani territory with relative ease.

Many experts argue that this context shows the Agni-V test is not directly linked to Pakistan’s announcement of the ARFC. Instead, they say, the test was likely a signal to China. Indian and Chinese troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff along their disputed Himalayan border for four years after a deadly clash in 2020, before Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia in October 2024 to begin a process of detente.

Modi’s visit to China for the SCO summit on Sunday will be his first to that country since 2018. In the past, India has often felt betrayed by overtures to China, which, it claims, have frequently been followed by aggression from Beijing along their border.

“India’s requirement for a long-range, but not intercontinental, missile is dictated by its threat perception of China,” Manpreet Sethi, a distinguished fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Agni-V is a nuclear-capable ballistic missile of 5,000km range, which India has been developing as part of its nuclear deterrence capability against China. It has no relevance to Pakistan,” Sethi added.

Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany, agreed.

“While the Agni-V might be usable against Pakistan, its primary mission would involve strikes on China,” he told Al Jazeera. “China’s east coast, where its most economically and politically important cities are situated, is hard to reach from India and requires long-range missiles.”

Missile race across South Asia

India and Pakistan have been steadily expanding their missile arsenals in recent years, unveiling new systems with increasing reach.

Before announcing the ARFC, Pakistan showcased the Fatah-4, a cruise missile with a 750km range and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

India, meanwhile, is working on Agni-VI, which is expected to have a range exceeding 10,000km and carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), a capability already present in Agni-V.

MIRV-enabled missiles can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of striking a separate target, significantly boosting their destructive potential.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, said India’s latest test demonstrates its growing intercontinental missile capabilities.

“With India working on different variants of Agni with multiple capabilities, this test was a technological demonstrator for India’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability,” Ahmed said.

“Depending on the configuration of the warheads for India’s SLBMs, India will be able to deploy anywhere between 200-300 warheads on its SSBN force alone over the next decade,” he added. SSBNs (ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear) are nuclear-powered submarines designed to carry SLBMs armed with nuclear warheads. India currently has two SSBNs in service, with two more under construction.

Pakistan, by contrast, does not possess long-range missiles or nuclear submarines. Its longest-range operational ballistic missile, the Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750km.

“Pakistan also has South Asia’s first MIRV-enabled ballistic missile called Ababeel, which can strike up to 2,200km range, but it is the shortest-ranged MIRV-enabled system deployed by any nuclear-armed state,” Ahmed said.

Tughral Yamin, a former Pakistani army brigadier and nuclear policy scholar, said the countries’ missile ambitions reflect divergent priorities.

“Pakistan’s programme is entirely Indian-specific and defensive in nature, while India’s ambitions extend beyond the subcontinent. Its long-range systems are designed for global power projection, particularly vis-a-vis China, and to establish itself as a great power with credible deterrence against major states,” said Yamin, author of The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia.

But some experts say Pakistan’s missile development programme isn’t only about India.

Ashley J Tellis, the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), said that while “India wants to be able to range China and Pakistan,” Islamabad is building the capability to keep Israel – and even the US – in its range, in addition to India.

“The conventional missile force in both countries is designed to strike critical targets without putting manned strike aircraft at risk,” Tellis told Al Jazeera.

US concerns over Pakistan’s ambitions, quiet acceptance of India’s rise

Pakistan’s missile programme came under intense spotlight in December last year when a senior White House official warned of Islamabad’s growing ambitions.

Jon Finer, serving in the then-Biden administration, described Pakistan’s pursuit of advanced missile technology as an “emerging threat” to the United States.

“If the trend continues, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States,” Finer said during an event at the CEIP.

By contrast, Tellis said India’s growing arsenal is not viewed as destabilising by Washington or its allies.

“Pakistan’s capabilities in contrast are viewed as unsettling because the early history of its nuclear programme had anti-Western overtones, sentiments that have taken on a specific anti-US colouration after 9/11 and the Abbottabad raid,” Tellis explained, referring to the US capture of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan in 2011.

Ahmed, the Canberra-based academic, said India’s long-range missile development is openly supported by Western powers as part of the US-led Asia Pacific strategy.

“The US and European powers have viewed and encouraged India to act as a net security provider. The India-US civil nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver effectively gave India de facto nuclear weapons status without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.

The NPT is a Cold War-era treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. It formally recognises only the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as nuclear weapons states.

But the 2008 waiver from the NSG – a club of 48 nations that sell nuclear material and technology – allowed India to engage in global nuclear trade despite not being an NPT signatory, a unique status that elevated its global standing.

Clary from the University of Albany, however, pointed out that unlike the Biden administration, the current Trump White House has not expressed any concerns about Pakistan’s missile programme – or about India’s Agni-V test.

“For now, so long as Pakistan keeps its missile tests limited to ranges already demonstrated by the Shaheen-III and Ababeel, I don’t expect Western governments to concern themselves overly with South Asia’s missile developments,” he said. “There are more than enough other problems to keep them busy.”

The U.S. Navy, together with 11 of America’s allies, is working to develop a follow-on to the Block 2 version of the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). The ESSM is an air defense staple on a wide array of American and foreign naval vessels, but concerns about an increasingly complex aerial threat ecosystem are now driving interest in a missile with improved capabilities.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) posted a notice online yesterday inviting prospective contractors to a meeting in October to discuss what is currently described as a “Next Significant Variant (NSV) missile system” to succeed the ESSM Block 2. NavalX, a technology incubator within ONR charged with fostering innovation for the Navy and Marine Corps, is currently partnered with the NATO SEASPARROW Project Office (NSPO) on this effort. The NSPO consortium, which dates back to 1968, currently includes the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. Despite the name, Australia is not a member of NATO, but is one of America’s top allies. The U.S. arm of NSPO falls under Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS).

The ESSM is a short-to-medium range surface-to-air missile primarily designed to offer an additional layer of defense against anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), but that is also capable of engaging other aerial threats. The baseline semi-active radar-guided Block 1 ESSM, which evolved from the earlier RIM-7 Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missile, itself based on the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile, was developed in the 1990s and entered service in the early 2000s. The Block 2 version, which began entering service in the early 2020s, features a much-improved seeker with semi-active and active modes, the latter of which does not require a radar on the launching ship to ‘illuminate’ the target. It also has a data link so the missile can receive targeting updates after launch, an especially useful capability for longer-range engagements.

“The NSPO is exploring technology to be incorporated into a Next Significant Variant (NSV) missile system,” yesterday’s notice says. “This successor to the ESSM Block 2 must be able to engage current and future threats while maintaining existing quad-pack sizing with a 10” missile diameter.”

The ESSM’s ability to be quad-packed into Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, giving ships valuable added magazine depth, is another one of the missile’s key features. Ships equipped with Mk 48, Mk 56, or Mk 57 VLS arrays, as well as deck-mounted Mk 29 box launchers, can also use them to fire ESSMs.

“To develop the NSV missile system, the NSPO will lean heavily on digital engineering and model-based systems engineering to communicate missile designs and requirements efficiently among consortium nations and industry partners in a shared development environment. These tools will be used to evaluate weapon systems and missile technologies through a design alternative evaluation process,” the ONR notice explains. “White papers are expected to include all aspects of the NSV missile including seeker technologies, autopilot, computing stack, internal communications, rocket motor alternatives, warhead design, missile to missile communications, data links, combat system integration, etc.”

No specific requirements are laid out in the notice. A multi-mode seeker that incorporates an imaging infrared (IIR) capability is one feature commonly discussed in the context of future anti-air missiles. An IIR mode would be immune to electronic warfare jamming and would not be impacted by a target’s radar-absorbing or deflecting stealth features. As a passive seeker mode, it would also not pump out signals that a threat could detect to alert them that they are being targeted. A new highly loaded grain rocket motor could also offer extended range without changing the missile’s form factor. These are just some of the possible features that could be included in a successor to the ESSM Block 2.

The notice about the NSV missile system does say that “potential industry partners,” as well as “existing” ones, are welcome at the upcoming meeting on the NSV missile system, which would seem to at least leave open the possibility of a follow-on to the ESSM Block 2 that has a substantially different design.

“Drivers for development include stressing simultaneous engagement scenarios, the need to develop fully releasable technologies using open architecture standards for all consortium partners to openly share, and the need to maintain capability with current consortium systems to the greatest extent possible while limiting ship support,” the notice also says, without further elaborating.

It is worth noting here that the Block 2 variant of the ESSM was itself developed in response to what the Navy described as a need for improved “capability against the most stressing ASCM threats in challenging environments.”

Navy warships, as well as those belonging to other members of the NSPO consortium, now face an aerial threat matrix that includes even more advanced supersonic, as well as hypersonic ASCMs. There is also the increasing likelihood that they could be layered in with anti-ship ballistic missiles and multiple tiers of drones, creating additional complexity for defenders. While an ESSM successor would not be tasked with ballistic missile defense, improved capability against other threats would give the crew of a ship greater flexibility to respond to an incoming complex attack. The Navy has been trying to accelerate work on high-power microwave directed energy weapons for the same general reasons.

The Navy and a number of other NSPO members are acutely aware of how the maritime threat ecosystem is evolving already from defending against cruise and ballistic missiles and drones launched by Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen while sailing in and around the Red Sea in the past two years or so. Existing ESSM variants have been employed in the course of those operations, but their role has not been touted to any significant degree, unlike a number of other naval surface-to-air missiles.

U.S. lessons learned from naval operations against the Houthis, as well as in the defense of Israel from Iran on multiple occasions since April 2024, have underscored the importance of magazine depth, even in the face of attacks involving relatively modest volumes of threats. Those experiences have also highlighted the vital need for at-sea reloading capabilities. Navy ships would be subjected to a wider array of threats in substantially larger volumes, and would burn through interceptors at a higher rate, in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

Overall, much remains to be learned about the plans for a follow-on to the Block 2 ESSM, but there are clear threat drivers that would prompt a desire for a successor.

Contact the author: [email protected]

BRITAIN must ramp up missile defences – like Israel’s Iron Dome – or risk its nuclear bases being obliterated in the first hours of a war with Russia.

Moscow would target RAF jets and Royal Navy nuclear submarines if it launched a surprise attack, a report by the Rusi think tank has warned.

4

4

A pre-emptive strike could “cripple” Britain’s nuclear deterrent and conventional military power – as most of the UK’s best weapons are “concentrated on just a few sites”.

The report warned a single Russian Yasen-class submarine could launch 40 cruise missiles from the Norwegian Sea with “relatively low warning”.

Yet the UK lacks both the radars to detect them “skimming over the sea” – or the weapons to shoot them down.

The report’s author Sidharth Kaushal said the immediate threat comes from sub-sonic Russian cruise missiles which can be launched from planes and submarines.

By 2035 the main risk will come from intermediate range ballistic missiles, like the Oreshnik blasted at Ukraine last year.

By 2040 the UK will need to defend against “hypersonic glide vehicles” which can travel at 20 times the speed of sound.

He also warned short range drones could be smuggled close to targets and launched from sea containers – like Ukraine’s Operation Spiders Web – or launched by Spetznaz special forces.

Kaushal said calls for a British Iron Dome were warranted by Russia’s focus on “long-range conventional precision strike” weapons.

He said: “The initial priority is the expansion of its capacity for the defence of critical military installations against what is primarily a cruise missile threat.”

The report urged Keir Starmer to buy space based sensors and long range radars that can see 3000km away, the equivalent of Lands End to Moscow.

He said “long-range precision strikes” was central to Kremlin military doctrine.

He said: “The destruction of aircraft on the ground is particularly salient. The destruction of nuclear attack submarines that carry submarine-launched cruise missiles is also described as a priority.”

Russian targets would likely the Royal Navy Bases at Devonport and Clyde and RAF Marham in Norfolk, where the nuclear capable fleet of F-35 stealth jets is based.

It comes after RAF war games showed Britain would be overwhelmed if it faced a Russian missile attack like the first night of the war in Ukraine.

Air Commodore Blythe Crawford said: “It was not a pretty picture.”

The drills suggested bases would be blown to smithereens and £100 million fighter jets could get blitzed before they could hide.

Air Cdre Crawford, who was head the RAF’s Air and Space Warfare Centre at the time, said it showed the UK “home base” was no longer safe.

4

4

The drills used a £36 million wargaming system to test the UK’s responses to “hundreds of different types of munitions” attacking from multiple different directions.

It exposed multiple vulnerabilities including a chronic shortage of airfields and a lack of hardened shelters for protect and hide jets on the ground.

The government sold off scores of airfields and watered-down the RAF’s powers to commandeer civilian runways.

The Armed Forces rely on RAF Typhoons, which scramble from RAF Lossiemouth, to shoot down incoming drones and cruise missiles.

The only British missiles that could intercept Russian ballistic missiles are based onboard the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers.

Air Cdr Crawford warned Britain had got lax by standing at the edge of Europe and “feeling as though the rest of the continent stood between us and the enemy”.

He said: “Ukraine has made us all sit up.” The government announced last week it was buying six more launchers to for its Sky Sabre air defence systems.

The weapons, used by the Royal Artillery, can shoot down targets the size of a tennis ball at two times the speed of sound.

Dutch defence minister announces details of support for Poland as Polish authorities accuse Russia of ‘provocation’ after drone crash.

Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans has said his country is sending 300 troops and Patriot air defence missile systems to Poland to “defend NATO territory, protect supply to Ukraine, and deter Russian aggression”.

The Netherlands’ announcement on Wednesday came as Polish officials said that an object that fell in a cornfield in Poland’s east on Tuesday night may have been a Russian version of the Shahed drone.

The explosion from the drone broke windows in several houses in the village of Osiny, near Poland’s border with Ukraine, but no injuries were reported, according to an official cited by Poland’s state news agency PAP.

Brekelmans told Dutch public broadcaster NOS on Wednesday that the military support to Poland came alongside other countries providing similar assistance to the NATO-member country, which borders Ukraine.

Brekelmans emphasised that the Patriot systems would be operating in Poland, and the accompanying 300 troops did not mean the Netherlands was putting troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Germany deployed five Eurofighter combat aircraft to Poland earlier this month, according to a German air force spokesman cited by Germany’s DPA news agency. The Kyiv Independent news outlet reported the fighter jets were deployed ahead of joint Russian-Belarusian military drills.

Germany also sent five Eurofighter jets and an estimated 270 soldiers to Romania, DPA reported on Wednesday.

Two of the Eurofighter jets in Romania were mobilised for the first time on Tuesday night, in response to Russian air strikes near Ukraine’s border with Romania, DPA said.

The jets, which took off from a Romanian military airbase, returned without incident, DPA added.

Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz accused Russia of “provocation”, noting the drone incident within Poland’s borders on Tuesday came “at a special moment, when there are ongoing discussions about peace” in Ukraine, Polskie Radio reported.

Several European leaders accompanied Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday, where one of the main topics of discussion was European countries providing post-war security guarantees to Ukraine as part of discussions around ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned on Wednesday that attempting to implement security issues relating to Ukraine without Moscow’s involvement was a “road to nowhere”.

“We cannot agree with the fact that now it is proposed to resolve questions of security, collective security, without the Russian Federation. This will not work,” Lavrov said.

Exclusive footage newly obtained by Al Jazeera captures the harrowing moment an Israeli drone-fired missile killed a Palestinian girl carrying water in Jabalia, northern Gaza, in December 2024. Two men are later seen retrieving her body.

Russia is no longer bound by a moratorium on the deployment of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said, with former President Dmitry Medvedev blaming NATO’s “anti-Russian policy” and warning that Moscow will take “further steps” in response.

Medvedev, who has engaged in a war of words on social media with United States President Donald Trump, made his latest broadside after the Foreign Ministry’s announcement on Monday.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries’ anti-Russian policy,” Medvedev posted in English on the X social media platform.

“This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,” he said.

Medvedev, who serves as the deputy head of Russia’s powerful Security Council and has made several hawkish comments on Russia’s nuclear capabilities in recent years, did not elaborate on what “further steps” may entail.

Last week, Trump said that he had ordered two US nuclear submarines to be repositioned to “the appropriate regions” in response to Medvedev’s remarks about the risk of war between Washington and Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries’ anti-Russian policy.
This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps.

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) August 4, 2025

In its statement, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the developing situation in Europe and the Asia Pacific prompted its reassessment on the deployment of short- and medium-range missiles.

“Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared,” the ministry said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last year that Moscow may have to respond to what they described as provocations by the US and NATO by lifting restrictions on missile deployment.

Lavrov told Russia’s state news agency RIA Novosti in December that Moscow’s unilateral moratorium on the deployment of such missiles was “practically no longer viable and will have to be abandoned”.

“The United States arrogantly ignored warnings from Russia and China and, in practice, moved on to deploying weapons of this class in various regions of the world,” Lavrov told the news agency.

The US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019, under the first Trump administration, citing Russian non-compliance, but Moscow had said that it would not deploy such weapons provided that Washington did not do so.

The INF treaty, signed in 1987 by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan, had eliminated an entire class of weapons: ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500km (311 to 3,418 miles).

In its first public reaction to Trump’s comments on the repositioning of US submarines, the Kremlin on Monday played down the remarks and said it was not looking to get into a public spat with the US president.

“In this case, it is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that’s the first thing,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

“But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,” he said.

“Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric,” he added.

The episode comes at a delicate moment, with Trump threatening to impose new sanctions on Russia and buyers of its oil, including India and China, unless President Vladimir Putin agrees by Friday to a ceasefire in Moscow’s war on Ukraine.

Putin said last week that peace talks had made some positive progress but that Russia had the momentum in its war against Ukraine, signalling no shift in his position despite the looming deadline.

The package includes radar systems, hundreds of missiles and logistical and engineering support from US personnel.

The US State Department has approved the potential sale of a surface-to-air missile package worth $4.67bn to the government of Egypt, the Pentagon has announced.

In a statement on Thursday, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said it had agreed to a “possible Foreign Military Sale” of a National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) package, including four AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel radar systems, hundreds of missiles, and dozens of guidance units.

NASAMS is a US- and Norwegian-developed air defence system designed to engage hostile aircraft, aerial drones, and cruise missiles.

US government employees and contractors will also provide engineering, technical and logistics support services to the Egyptian military as part of the potential deal.

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East,” the Defense Security Cooperation Agency statement said, referring to Egypt.

The prime contractor will be a US multinational aerospace and defence conglomerate, RTX Corporation, located in the state of Massachusetts.

The defence agency said that it had already “delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale”.

If approved, about 26 US government employees and 34 contractors will travel to Egypt for an “extended period” in order to provide training and technical and logistics support.

Cairo, a longstanding US ally in the Middle East, has received generous defence funding from Washington since it signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

But there have been indications of warming ties between Egypt and China in recent years, including the countries’ first-ever joint military drills, hosted in April and May this year.

Called the “Eagles of Civilization 2025”, the countries’ air forces conducted two weeks of training, which the Egyptian military described as part of “broader efforts to deepen defence ties with China and strengthen joint military capabilities”.

A Russian missile attack on Ukraine’s Dnipro region killed at least 17 people and wounded more than 200 others, including 18 children, Ukrainian officials said. As rescue crews combed through rubble, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged NATO allies in the Netherlands to invest in Ukraine’s defence.

Iran launched waves of air strikes at Israel as the deadline approached for a ceasefire to which Tehran is reported to have agreed.

The launches came on Tuesday after 4am local time (7:30 GMT) in Tehran, the time Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran would stop its attacks if Israel ended its air strikes.

Waves of missiles sent Israelis to bomb shelters for almost two hours in the morning.

Several people were reported killed in the early morning barrages, but there was no immediate word of further attacks.

Israel’s Magen David Adom rescue services said at least eight more people were injured.

The Israeli military later said people could leave the shelters but cautioned the public to stay close to protection in the coming hours.

Trump’s announcement that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire” came soon after Iran launched a limited missile attack on Monday on a US military base in Qatar, retaliating for the US bombing of its nuclear sites.

Israel said later on Tuesday that it has agreed to the ceasefire after having “achieved all objectives” in its war with Iran.

Qatar was the “obvious choice” for Iranian retaliation against the US because it hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East while also acting as a trusted intermediary for Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari explained after the missile attack near Doha.

While military strategists scramble to learn the damage done by U.S. bombs and missiles in Iran, many scholars and Iranian Americans are wondering what this means for the people and architectural treasures of Isfahan.

The Isfahan area, which includes one of the three Iranian nuclear sites that the U.S. targeted Saturday, is also home to one of the country’s most historic cities, full of landmarks from Persia’s years as a regional power in the 17th century.

Isfahan “is thought of as a sort of treasure, like a vestige of a different Iran,” said Jasmin Darznik, who spent part of her childhood in Iran before becoming a novelist and chair of the MFA writing program at California College of the Arts in San Francisco. “I think people have a very special feeling about the place.”

The city’s architecture includes intricately tiled mosques, several stately bridges and a sprawling square that has been named a UNESCO World Heritage Site. American and Israeli military leaders focus on the nuclear complex 14 miles east of Isfahan and the 2.2 million people in the city, but the list of cultural assets there is also long.

A UNESCO report recently noted that the region’s 17th-century leaders “established colourful tiling as the most salient characteristic of Iranian architecture, and this decorative style reached its zenith in Isfahan.”

Among the landmarks:

Naqsh-e Jahan Square is the second-largest public square in the world, surpassed only by Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

(Kaveh Kazemi / Getty Images)

Naqsh-e Jahan Square, also known as Shah Square and Imam Square, was laid out between 1598 and 1629, its broad central area surrounded by mosques, palaces and the Isfahan Bazaar. The open space is about 1,800 feet long and about 520 feet wide, which appears to make it the second-largest public square in the world, surpassed only by Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

The Masjed-e Jāmé, also known as the Jāmé Mosque or Great Mosque of Isfahan, was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012. It goes back to the year 841, its grounds showing how Islamic architecture has evolved over 12 centuries. It is the oldest Friday (congregational) mosque in Iran.

The Si-o-Se Pol Bridge, also known as the Bridge of 33 Arches, was begun in 1599 and completed in 1602. Illuminated by night, it harbors tea houses on its lower deck and has served as a gathering spot for generations. At 977 feet long, it is the largest of 11 historic bridges spanning the Zayandeh River.

Khaju Bridge is often billed as the most beautiful bridge in Isfahan.

(Rasoul Shojaei / IRNA / AFP via Getty Images)

Khaju Bridge is younger and shorter than the Si-o-Se Pol Bridge but is often billed as the most beautiful bridge in Isfahan. It was built around 1650 and made of stone and bricks with tile work above its arches. It is about 449 feet long.

As the U.S. stepped into the war between Israel and Iran, U.S. military authorities told the New York Times they targeted Iranian sites in Fordo and Natanz with “bunker-buster” bombs and Isfahan with missiles from a submarine. As of noon Sunday, CNN reported 18 destroyed or damaged structures at the Isfahan nuclear complex outside the city, which was built in 1984 and is thought to employ 3,000 scientists, making it Iran’s largest nuclear research complex.

This satellite image shows the Isfahan nuclear facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies / Associated Press)

There were no reports of damage or casualties in central Isfahan.

Much of the city goes back to the Safavid dynasty, which lasted unbroken from 1501 to 1722. During the dynasty’s peak years, the Safavids held power over what is now Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Armenia, along with parts of Georgia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Türkiye and other countries.

The leader during many of those peak years was King Abbas I, also known as Abbas the Great, who assumed power at age 16, ruled from 1587 to 1629, chose Isfahan as his empire’s capital and effectively rerouted the Silk Road to include the city. While Shakespeare was writing plays in England and Caravaggio was painting in Italy, Isfahan’s landmarks were taking shape and, thanks to the Silk Road trade, Persian rugs began showing up in the homes of wealthy Europeans.

Toward the end of his tenure, nervous about succession, Abbas I had one of his sons killed and two blinded. Still, the family dynasty continued for another century. Once the dynasty fell, Isfahan lost its status as Persia’s capital but retained its reputation for beauty.

June 20 (UPI) — Calling Iran an “evil regime,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday visited the Weizmann Institute of Science, close to where an Iranian missile hit earlier this week.

“This is the world-renowned Weizmann Institute, where the most advanced research in human biology is conducted — medical research, genetic research,” Netanyahu told reporters during the tour of the institute in the city of Rehovot in central Israel, some 12.5 miles south of Tel Aviv with a population of 150,000 people.

“This research was shattered by a missile from the evil regime. They seek to destroy human progress. That is the essence of this regime. They have enslaved and oppressed their people for nearly 50 years — half a century. Iran is the leading terrorist regime in the world. It must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. This is Israel’s mission: to save itself from the Iranian threat of annihilation. In doing so, we are saving many, many others.”

Netanyahu’s tour of the site where two buildings were completely destroyed came a day after the prime minister said in a post on X, “We will make the tyrants from Tehran pay the full price.”

Iranian missile strikes also hit the largest hospital in Southern Israel earlier in the week. The two countries are engaged in hostilities over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Weizmann Institute is known as the research crown jewel of Israeli science, with laboratories dedicated to studying health issues such as cancer, heart disease and neurodevelopmental disorders.

“It’s completely gone. Not a trace. Nothing can be saved,” Professor Oren Schuldiner told The Economic Times.

Officials estimate the damage from Iranian missiles to the institute at more than $500 million. Thousands of hours of research have also been lost.

“The most valuable resource of the Weizmann Institute, aside from property, are samples that have been stored for decades in labs for scientific research — and all of it is gone, with no backup,” Biomolecular Sciences Department Professor Tslil Ast told Y Net News.

Netanyah also toured an Israel Defense Forces base Friday where he praised intelligence officers for their work in the recent operations carried out in Iran.

“I am here at an IDF Intelligence base with the head of IDF intelligence, and with our amazing people, the soldiers, both conscripts and reservists, who are doing sacred work in providing us with the intelligence that wins wars,” Netanyahu said, accompanied by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, National Security Council Director Tzachi Hanegbi and other top officials.

“I cannot exaggerate the importance of the work that has been done, and which is being done at the moment, in achieving the total victory. Head of IDF Intelligence, thank you very much. For myself, the citizens of Israel and the Government of Israel, please convey my gratitude to everyone.”

Tensions in the region continue to escalate, with representatives from the European Union and Britain meeting for ciris talks on Friday with the Iranian counterparts.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday set a 14-day deadline to decide on possible American military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.

On Friday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said the goal of Western allies is “obtaining from Iran a lasting rollback of its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.”

“This man absolutely should not continue to exist.” Israel’s defence minister threatened to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after Iranian missile strikes across Israel. The missiles injured dozens, damaging a hospital, a high-rise, and several residential buildings.