Opinion
The Real Reason Israel Attacked Iran
There was nothing preemptive about the Israeli assault on Iranian military and civilian infrastructure and officials.
As the Israeli-Iranian confrontation enters its third day, casualties on both sides are mounting. At least 80 people have been killed in Iran and at least 10 in Israel. Despite the deadly response from Iran, Israeli officials have continued to insist that attacks on various Iranian nuclear and military facilities were necessary.
A number of justifications have been broadcast to the Israeli public, but none explains the true reasons why the Israeli government decided to carry out the unilateral, unprovoked assault.
The Israeli government claims that the strike was a “preventive” one, meant to address an immediate, inevitable threat on Iran’s part to construct a nuclear bomb. There appears to be no evidence for this claim. Israel’s strike was undoubtedly meticulously planned over a long period of time. A preventive attack must carry an element of self-defence, which, in turn, is generated by an emergency. No such emergency appears to have occurred.
Additionally, Israel has suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released on June 12 that condemned Iran for material violations of its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments until the early 2000s constitutes such an emergency. But even the IAEA seems to reject that claim. There was nothing in the report that was not already known to the relevant parties.
The Israeli government has also suggested, in direct relation to the notion of a “preventive” strike, that it aimed to “decapitate” Iran’s nuclear programme. It is generally agreed by scholars and policymakers that Israel lacks the ability to destroy the programme, especially if it attempts to carry out such a strike on its own.
The nature of the campaign as it unfolds also seems to indicate that Israel never meant to wipe out Iranian nuclear activities. The Israeli army has been bombing various military and governmental targets, from missile bases to a gasfield and an oil depot. It has also carried out a string of assassinations against senior Iranian military leaders. Ali Shamkhani, a former defence minister and a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was among those targeted and is reported to have been killed, though Iranian state media and government are yet to officially confirm his death. Shamkhani is believed to have been a leading figure in the talks with the United States over the past months.
His assassination, alongside others’, reflects a favourite Israeli modus operandi. Israel often attempts to “eliminate” specific people in the hope that their deaths would bring about the unravelling of the systems and institutions they lead. The death of Shamkhani can be construed as an attempt to sabotage talks between Iran and the US. In any case, assassinations also seem to indicate the existence of a thorough plan to demonstrate Israel’s might at all levels of Iranian official life and practices. This is not a “decapitation” of the Iranian nuclear programme.
A third suggestion is that Israel has its heart set on jumpstarting “regime change” in Tehran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this overtly when he called on the “proud people of Iran” to stand up for their “freedom from an evil and repressive regime”.
The assumption that Iranians would simply do Israel’s bidding as it bombs them relentlessly and unilaterally seems akin to the notion that if Israel starves and exterminates the Palestinians in Gaza to the required extent, they would rise against Hamas and remove it from power.
Even if that were the case, presuming that all the Iranians are waiting for is an Israeli strike to move against the regime demonstrates a profound lack of understanding with regard to the forces driving Iranian politics. While many Iranians undoubtedly oppose the Islamic Republic, Iranians of all political persuasions are consistently “patriotic”, committed to supporting Iranian sovereignty and independence from any attempts by external elements to impose their agendas on their country.
In fact, just as numerous Israelis who would consider themselves uncompromising critics of Netanyahu jumped to attention when the Israeli attack began and are now vocally supporting the government – most egregiously, members of the parliamentary “opposition” – so are numerous opponents of the Islamic Republic now rallying behind the flag in support of Iran’s violated sovereignty. Claiming that Israel is merely “laying the groundwork” for a popular Iranian rebellion by striking is, at best, a cynical manipulation.
Israel has not struck Iran for all these reasons. So, what drove the attack? Amid the genocidal campaign in Gaza, Netanyahu is very much aware that his government is running out of options. The international community, as well as regional allies, have started to criticise Israel vocally. Some have also been preparing to carry out unilateral measures, like the mass recognition of a Palestinian state.
The International Criminal Court’s warrant of arrest for Netanyahu is looming, and the decision of the International Court of Justice about the legality of Israel’s occupation is waiting to be fulfilled. Israel and its military have continuously carried out massacres, denied them, and have been found to be lying.
There is no doubt that Netanyahu planned the strike on Iran for years, waiting for just the right time. This time came on Friday. It is a desperate attempt to rally the world behind Israel, just as preparations are made to deny it the absolute impunity it has enjoyed since its creation.
Iran is still considered a potential threat by many leading powers of the Global North. By invoking the known tropes associated with unilateral lethal Israeli action – from divine promises to the Holocaust – Netanyahu hoped to re-establish the status quo; Israel can still do whatever it wants.
This is Israel’s current definition of “security”, the most hallowed principle at its core. It is the seemingly apolitical genesis of Israeliness, the site devoted wholly to Jewish supremacy, which is the only “real” way to ensure the integrity of Jewish lives. “Security” means that Israel can kill whoever it wants for as long as it wants and wherever and whenever it wants without paying any sort of price for its actions.
This “security” is what has motivated Israel’s actions from Gaza to Yemen to Lebanon and Syria, and now in Iran. Such a “security regime” must expand continuously, of course. It can never stop. By striking Iran, Netanyahu has gone for broke, staking a claim for complete and absolute impunity for Israel as well as for himself, in The Hague as well as in domestic courts.
Will this be Netanyahu’s salvation? Will the Israeli public forgive him for his abject failures at home and horrid transgressions in Gaza? When observing the current sense of jubilation in public Israeli discourse, this may very well be the case.
The long lines stretching from every open store, hardware to food, demonstrate that Israelis have entered blank survival mode. A docile citizenry may be good for Netanyahu, but it portends ill for any attempt to build and defend a robust Israeli society.
Aljazeera.com
The war in Sudan is no longer a Sudanese war. What began on April 15, 2023 as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has mutated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes and a full-blown proxy conflict.
The numbers are staggering.
According to UN estimates, nearly 200,000 people have been killed. More than 12 million have been displaced internally and across borders. Famine is no longer a risk — it is a reality in Darfur and parts of Khartoum. UN agencies have warned repeatedly that conditions will worsen as the fighting escalates and humanitarian access shrinks.
And yet, no regional initiative from IGAD, no African Union roadmap, no UN Security Council resolution has managed to halt the violence. Control of the war has slipped beyond the two belligerents. Weapons, money, drones and mercenaries flow in from outside, ensuring that the battlefield evolves faster than diplomacy.
This week, Massad Boulos, the US President’s Senior Adviser for Arab and African Affairs, made a fresh appeal on X: “The warring parties in Sudan must accept a humanitarian truce as the first step toward lasting peace,” he wrote, adding that Sudanese people deserve “an opportunity to engage in a political process leading to peace in a united Sudan.” It was a familiar call. What is unfamiliar is what Washington is now alleging happened on the battlefield.
America’s Position: No Legitimate Government In Khartoum
According to PMnewsnigeria.com,
Washington’s assessment of Sudan’s political legitimacy is brutally frank. The US State Department has stated that neither the SAF nor the RSF, nor their leaders, constitute a legitimate and constitutional government. Both rule solely by force of arms, and therefore both are unqualified to govern the country.
In practice, however, the international system still treats the army as Sudan’s de facto official authority. Burhan’s administration in Port Sudan issues passports, sits in international meetings, and addresses the UN. This is despite the fact that he came to power through a military coup in 2021, derailing a civilian transition, and despite grave allegations of abuses including indiscriminate airstrikes, killings of civilians, and obstruction of humanitarian aid.
The State Department says it has repeatedly demanded an unconditional humanitarian truce and a commitment to an inclusive political dialogue that leads to civilian rule. Those demands have been ignored.
The diplomatic rupture deepened this week. Reuters reported that the United States refused to grant a visa to General Burhan ahead of his scheduled address to the 81st UN General Assembly on Thursday.
Sudanese sources said the move was linked to a US-backed ceasefire proposal that Port Sudan opposes. The decision, if confirmed, would mark the lowest point in US-Sudanese relations since the war began. A Sudanese source told Reuters that Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem would deliver the speech instead.
PMnewsnigeria.com notes it is not an isolated sanction. In January 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on Burhan personally, accusing the SAF under his leadership of violating international humanitarian law, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, carrying out extrajudicial killings, and obstructing aid delivery. Yet Burhan remained a central interlocutor for international diplomats.
Dragging Sudan Into The Prohibited
It is against this background that the chemical weapons allegation has emerged — potentially the most serious escalation in the war’s legal and moral dimension.
Sudan has been a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) since 1999.
The Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Membership was supposed to close that chapter forever.
In May 2025, the US State Department declared that it had determined that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons against the RSF. Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan as a consequence. It did not stop there.
It brought the case to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, calling on Sudan to comply fully with its obligations and to allow independent verification.
Khartoum responded with a national investigation that concluded no evidence of chemical weapons use had been found.
Washington rejected the national mechanism outright, stating that a self-investigation cannot substitute for independent international verification.
For months, the issue simmered. Then in September 2026, two major American newspapers — The Washington Post and The New York Times — published investigative reports citing classified documents and intelligence. Both alleged that the Sudanese army had established a stockpile of chemical weapons, including munitions and bombs containing chlorine gas, and had used them against RSF positions during the ongoing war.
The army categorically denies the allegations.
The OPCW is the only specialized international body technically capable of confirming such use through sample collection, chain-of-custody procedures and laboratory analysis. But its ability to operate inside an active war zone like Sudan is severely limited. So far, the independent international investigation has been minimal compared to the seriousness of the allegation.
The Justice Gap The World Cannot Ignore
This creates what analysts call a normalization of alleged war crimes. The RSF is rightly pursued for documented atrocities, including ethnically motivated killings in Darfur and widespread sexual violence. But the SAF, despite allegations of chemical weapons use, indiscriminate bombing, and the suspension of Burhan’s visa, continues to be presented as the legitimate voice of Sudan at the UN.
According to PMnewsnigeria.com, the United Nations International Independent Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has tried to correct that imbalance. Its report states that both sides have committed serious violations of international law and that some drone operations could amount to war crimes. It also notes that recruitment of foreign fighters and external support networks are fueling the war, strengthening the military capabilities of both parties and enabling increasingly sophisticated operations with devastating civilian consequences.
The Mission reminds states linked to these supply chains that they have strict obligations under international law to exercise due diligence, investigate and halt illicit mercenary and supply networks operating from or through their territories, prevent violations, and enforce the UN arms embargo.
The central question for the international community is no longer whether Sudan’s war is dangerous — it is how dangerous it has become. If chemical weapons have indeed been used, Sudan has crossed a red line that implicates not just Burhan, but the global non-proliferation regime itself.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arrested Olori Halima Tejuoso in connection with an alleged N600 million fraud involving Mrs Mary Oluwaseye Sholoye and Mallam Ibrahim Gidado.
Tejuoso was arrested on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, after allegedly failing to honour an invitation by the Commission following her release on administrative bail.
Confirming the development, EFCC spokesman, Dele Oyewale, said Tejuoso was arrested after she allegedly jumped the administrative bail earlier granted to her by the Commission.
According to Oyewale, Gidado, who is also linked to the investigation, had been arrested earlier and arraigned before a court.
Tejuoso was reportedly accused of obtaining about N600 million from Sholoye by false pretence in connection with Gidado.
She had earlier appeared before the EFCC, where she reportedly told investigators that Gidado had allegedly defrauded her of the money she was accused of collecting from Sholoye.
However, following Gidado’s arrest and subsequent invitation by the Commission, Tejuoso reportedly failed to appear and could not be reached.
The EFCC subsequently declared her wanted on April 27, 2026, as part of its investigation into the alleged fraud.
Her arrest on September 15 brings to an end several months during which the Commission had been seeking her whereabouts.
The latest development is expected to allow the EFCC to proceed with further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged N600 million transaction and Tejuoso’s relationship with the other parties involved.
The Commission’s position indicates that the matter involving Gidado has already progressed to court, while further legal steps concerning Tejuoso are expected to follow the completion of the ongoing investigation and necessary legal processes.
However, the allegations against Tejuoso remain unproven until determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
All parties involved are presumed innocent unless and until found guilty by a court of law.
-Source: Daily Times Nigeria
Arise Television co-host Rufai Oseni has faced backlash online after sharing the outcome of an online civic opinion poll that showed Peter Obi leading a hypothetical 2027 presidential field by a wide margin.
On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, Oseni posted a screenshot from the Nigeria Elections Intelligence System (NEIS) platform with a single-word caption: “Polling.”
The image showed Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) commanding 87.4 per cent of counted responses.
Atiku Abubakar of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) followed with 5.1 per cent, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) at 4.6 per cent, and Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) at 1.9 per cent.
The figures were drawn from more than 2,500 counted responses. NEIS describes itself as an independent, non-partisan election intelligence platform that conducts pre-election civic opinion polls and maps polling units across Nigeria. The results Rufai Oseni shared were from one such online exercise and carry no official electoral weight.
The post sparked immediate pushback. Several social media users argued that Rufai Oseni’s own follower base tilts heavily towards Peter Obi supporters, known as Obidients, making the poll’s findings a reflection of his audience rather than the broader Nigerian electorate.
Others pointed out that real elections are decided by voters at polling units, not by online participants, and that the results had no bearing on what a 2027 contest would actually look like. The debate unfolds as preparations for the 2027 general elections gain momentum.
Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already published a final list of presidential candidates, which includes Tinubu, Obi, Atiku and Makinde running on their respective platforms.
Check out Rufai Oseni’s X post about the results of the online 2027 presidential poll below: 
@gsbabatunde wrote: “Rufai will remain immature. You packed Obidense as followers and you are conducting Polls among them knowing fully well that the actual election involves real Voters and not Bots. What sort of ‘Childish Journalist’ are You???”
@Dailymercytye said: “They’ve start their online election gaslighting again. When they lose the real election, it’ll suddenly become a ‘rigged election’ to them and they’ll start shouting rigging.”
@adewalenisa reacted: “Same way you misled Olumide Akpata in Edo Governorship……”
@IsraelYusuf13 commented: “Twitter no be polling unit. Enough of all this online noise and let face our country”
@Commyhot1 wrote: “Online President PitObi @PeterObi,
@ruffydfire the online chairman has declared you winner oooh! Congratulations online president. Una go collect woto woto come January 16”
@AdekunleAdelaj1 stated: “Some people will call for presidential debate where this type of person will be one of them and say it’s going to be a fair one. It’s only Morons that can hold such beliefs. Online president i congratulate you as your OLOFO, chairman has declared you winner.”
@tman_musa added: “Rufai when you really want to wise up and understand online polls is not real life.”
Salary: Fresh Update Emerges On Payment To Nigerian Workers
Obasanjo’s Son Picks Side In 2027 Race
