Trump envoy proposes 3.67% uranium cap for Iran—far short of Netanyahu’s demand to demolish Iran’s nuclear threat.

Iran can enrich uranium—but only to 3.67%. That’s the Trump White House’s new line. And Israel is fuming.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump’s special nuclear envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed what many feared: the U.S. is open to a civilian nuclear program in Iran. That includes enrichment—just not beyond 3.67%. For context, weapons-grade uranium begins at 90% enrichment. But critics argue even civilian levels keep Iran just a political decision away from breakout capability.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t buying it. His vision? The Libya model—total dismantlement, zero centrifuges, and military sites destroyed under American watch.

“If it’s not Libya-style, it’s not a deal,” Netanyahu reportedly told Trump during their recent White House meeting. Inside sources say Trump’s plan smells a lot like the Obama-era JCPOA, just with new lipstick and softer wording.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies didn’t mince words:

“Did we walk away in 2018 just to return to the same broken framework in 2025?”

Meanwhile, Iran’s response? Flat rejection. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared any discussion of missile or armament oversight a “red line.” Tehran also refuses to ship its enriched stockpile abroad, instead offering IAEA-supervised storage on Iranian soil—which critics call meaningless.

As the next round of talks looms in Oman, and the IAEA chief Rafael Grossi heads to Tehran, one thing is clear: Iran’s nuclear clock isn’t just ticking—it’s accelerating.

Trump may think a diplomatic victory is within reach. But without dismantling centrifuges and cutting Iran’s breakout time to zero, the regime’s path to a bomb remains wide open.

Seoul forms ties with Damascus—once North Korea’s close ally—signaling deeper fractures in Kim Jong Un’s global circle.

From Cold War enemy lines to unexpected diplomacy, South Korea has pulled off a quiet but powerful geopolitical win: establishing full diplomatic ties with Syria, a state long entrenched in North Korea’s orbit.

This isn’t just a photo-op. It’s the final piece of Seoul’s 191-state UN diplomatic puzzle—and a direct message to Pyongyang. The deal, signed in Damascus by South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul and his Syrian counterpart Asaad al-Shibani, opens the gates for economic collaboration, reconstruction assistance, and developmental aid to a battered but rebuilding Syria.

But the deeper story? Syria’s new transitional government is recalibrating. Under President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Damascus is charting a path away from militant reliance and Iranian dependence. Former HTS affiliates and technocrats now sit together in a reform-minded cabinet that’s prioritizing civil unity, dismantling militias, and inviting investment—from Seoul, not Tehran.

Meanwhile, North Korea is silent. Since Assad’s fall, Kim Jong Un’s state media has hardly mentioned Syria—except for one vague nod to “the Middle East crisis.” And while North Korea once flooded Syria with arms and advisers, it now watches as South Korea lands in the heart of its former ally’s reconstruction blueprint.

Strategically, this could be a diplomatic domino: Syria joined Turkey’s Anatolia Forum, hinting at a new regional outreach effort, even as the country remains divided—with Turkish forces, US-backed SDF, and former militias still active.

Seoul’s next move? Offering its post-war economic miracle model as a blueprint for Syria’s rebirth—and inserting itself into Middle Eastern politics like never before.

Pyongyang has lost a foothold. Washington is watching. Beijing is calculating. And Syria? It may have just opened its gates to a brand new alliance map.

As US air cover and drone support gear up, the largest offensive of Yemen’s war targets Houthis’ stronghold in Hodeidah.

Hodeidah may soon become the graveyard of the Houthi movement. A massive 80,000-strong government force—backed by US air support and drone surveillance—is reportedly preparing to storm Yemen’s key Red Sea port in what could mark the most decisive offensive in the entire civil war.

According to Dr. Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, the scale of this operation dwarfs anything seen before in the conflict. “We might be at the stage of counting down the end of the Houthis,” he declared in a Friday interview with Emirati state media.

The port of Hodeidah, long viewed as a strategic artery for food imports and arms smuggling, has been a Houthi fortress since 2014. Previous attempts to retake it—most notably in 2018—triggered UN panic and international pressure, halting offensives in the name of humanitarian protection. But the Houthis violated the 2018 Stockholm Agreement, retaking full control by 2021.

Now, a renewed alliance of Yemeni loyalists, Gulf support, and CENTCOM coordination is preparing to change the game. Airstrikes have already begun softening Houthi defenses, reportedly eliminating several high-ranking militants in recent days.

What makes this operation different? Washington is back in the arena. General Michael Kurilla’s high-level meeting in Saudi Arabia, coupled with CENTCOM’s expanded regional presence, suggests the US is investing real firepower into ending Houthi control—perhaps as a broader message to Iran.

But the cost could be immense. Aid cuts from the US and UK, combined with a fragile civilian population inside Hodeidah, risk tipping the operation into a humanitarian nightmare. UN voices are already preparing to intervene.

Still, experts insist the Houthis have had their chance. “They chose power over peace,” says Dr. Sager. “Now they must face the consequences.”

Syria’s post-Assad leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa outlines reconstruction, unity, and disarmament as priorities—but faces daunting internal and geopolitical obstacles.

After 15 years of civil war, Syria’s future hinges on one question: can the transitional government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa transform devastation into durable unity—or is this just the calm before another storm?

In their first official meeting on April 7, Sharaa’s government laid out an ambitious plan that reads like a blueprint for national resurrection. Reconstruction, integration of fractured regions, economic revitalization, and disarmament are the pillars. Yet behind every promise is a political landmine.

Sharaa himself—once the commander of the Islamist faction Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—now helms a government with surprising diversity: ministers representing Christians, Druze, Kurds, and even Alawites. This cosmetic inclusivity is designed to telegraph a message: this is not Assad’s Syria. But it may not be enough to convince a war-weary population still recovering from displacement, famine, and chemical attacks.

The biggest challenge? Territorial fragmentation. Turkey still controls chunks of northern Syria. The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) run the east. The recent deal between Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi hints at a future merger—but it’s a fragile hope, not a certainty. And Iran, never far from Syria’s power grid, continues to loom in the background, quietly assessing how this transitional order threatens its regional interests.

Reconstruction sounds noble, but in practice it’s a logistical and financial nightmare. Entire cities must be rebuilt from scratch. Refugees are returning, only to find homes razed and services non-existent. The plan to reintegrate militias and dissolve non-state armed groups is bold—but could easily spiral into another power struggle.

Sharaa’s government also faces the delicate balancing act of civil peace and media control. Calls for “inclusive, national discourse” are loaded in a post-dictatorship context. Who decides what is inclusive? And can Syria build unity without honest reconciliation or transitional justice?

There is promise in Sharaa’s roadmap—but it’s crawling with risks. Without serious international backing and internal discipline, the new Syrian state could collapse under the same fault lines that doomed its predecessor.

The next 12 months will determine whether this new government is a bridge to peace—or just another fragile experiment in a country that’s seen too many false dawns.

There has been extensive strategic planning regarding the possibility of Israel conducting strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. One scenario that has been considered involves the Israeli Air Force (IAF) launching coordinated attacks with stealth fighter jets.

Several squadrons of F-35 aircraft could fly along separate routes to hit targets across Iran, some over 1,200 miles from Israel. Some jets may take a route along the Syria-Turkey border and cross Iraq, despite opposition from those countries. Others could fly through Saudi airspace, though it is unclear if that would be with tacit agreement or condemnation.

The primary objective would be eliminating Iran’s integrated air defense network at dozens of nuclear sites through carefully selected targets. This system is far more advanced than those of Hamas, Hezbollah or other adversaries. Both F-35s and Israel’s F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons could participate, some armed with 5,000-pound bombs to penetrate deeply underground facilities.

Additional waves may target Iran’s foremost nuclear installations, such as the hardened Fordow facility buried 80 metres deep. While the US has refused to provide Israel bunker-busting bombs of this size, repeated strikes could disrupt power, block entrances and isolate targets internationally.

Such an operation would not be without risk. Aircraft could be lost to Iranian defences or fuel issues, though Israel’s loss rate in previous campaigns has been very low. Special forces in Iran may also face dangers. Other targets like the heavy water reactor at Arak and uranium conversion plant at Isfahan could also be prioritized, though seen as less pressing than weaponisation sites.

By mid-2023, reports indicated the IAF had formed a new unit focused solely on intelligence collection to comprehensively map Iranian military infrastructure beyond just nuclear targets, such as Revolutionary Guard Corps power sources. However, Israel may choose not to conduct such extensive attacks, and would weigh the need to maintain allied support. On the other hand, the threat of retaliation has lessened following recent events, changing strategic calculations.

A senior Israeli diplomat has made it unmistakably clear: neither Israel nor Hamas will govern Gaza after the current war ends. “We don’t want to be there,” declared Tsach Saar, Israeli Deputy Consul General in New York. His comments highlight a pivotal moment for the Gaza Strip, raising urgent questions about the region’s future amid intensifying international involvement.

With Hamas severely weakened yet still entrenched, Israel is determined to eliminate any future threat from Gaza, a sentiment echoed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. The conflict, which erupted dramatically on October 7, has already claimed over 50,000 Palestinian and 1,600 Israeli lives, amplifying international urgency to find a sustainable solution.

U.S. President Donald Trump has ignited fierce controversy with his unprecedented proposal: relocating Gaza’s nearly 2 million Palestinians to other nations and initiating extensive real estate projects. Initially criticized for its extreme nature, the plan has evolved to emphasize voluntary relocation. Still, it has triggered widespread Arab backlash, though Netanyahu praised it as “the first good idea” he’s encountered regarding Gaza.

Arab nations, scrambling to counter Trump’s proposal, introduced an alternative: an administrative committee of independent Palestinians overseeing Gaza temporarily, followed by control transferred to a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA). Hamas and the PA both welcomed this initiative, while Israel dismissed it outright as outdated and unrealistic.

The Israeli government remains laser-focused on completely dismantling Hamas’ military capabilities and governance structures. Meanwhile, Hamas spokesperson Basem Naim asserts the conflict’s underlying issue is the Palestinian right to self-determination, accusing Israel and the Trump administration of aiming to forcibly expel Palestinians from their land.

As Israel’s military campaign continues, the international community watches anxiously, debating Trump’s radical proposals and other diplomatic initiatives. Gaza stands at a historic crossroads: will the territory become a U.S.-led economic project, fall under international administration, or return to Palestinian governance?

One thing remains clear—Gaza’s future is uncertain, and the decisions made now will reshape regional geopolitics for decades.

The United States launched intense airstrikes against Houthi targets across northern Yemen, dramatically escalating the conflict after the Yemen-based group targeted Israeli territory with ballistic missiles.

CENTCOM confirmed late Friday that multiple strategic strikes were carried out, reportedly hitting cities under Houthi control, including the capital Sana’a, Saada, and the Al Jawf Governorate. Yemeni sources, particularly the Houthi-affiliated Al-Masirah, reported a staggering 24 airstrikes, with at least 14 bombings in Saada alone. Casualties included one civilian death and four injuries, according to Houthi claims.

These US airstrikes followed swiftly after Houthis brazenly fired two ballistic missiles toward Israel, both intercepted by the IDF’s Iron Dome defense system. This aggressive act triggered air raid sirens throughout central Israel, including major cities like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, bringing the Middle East perilously close to a broader conflict.

The incident reignited recent controversy involving the Trump administration’s security blunder, where sensitive details about past US strikes against Houthi leaders were mistakenly leaked via the messaging app Signal. Notably, intelligence used in these prior attacks reportedly originated from Israel, prompting heated diplomatic tensions over the accidental leak.

The rapid escalation now positions Yemen squarely in the crosshairs of a broader regional confrontation, leaving waryatv.com readers to question whether these strikes represent a decisive step toward neutralizing the Houthi threat or if they dangerously push the region closer to an uncontrollable war.

Strategic Forecast: Israel’s Ground Operation in Syria Marks a New Phase — What It Signals and What May Follow.

waryatv.com | Exclusive Analysis

Israel’s latest confirmed ground operation in southern Syria signals a tactical and strategic escalation that experts say could reshape the current regional balance — or at the very least, spark new responses from Iran-backed militias and proxy groups across the region.

According to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the operation was in direct response to gunfire from “terrorists” in southern Syria. In turn, IDF troops returned fire and launched airstrikes that reportedly targeted and destroyed hostile infrastructure near Daraa and Kuwaya. Syrian media claimed four people were killed and that Israeli forces briefly advanced on the ground before encountering resistance.

While Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria over the past decade, its confirmation of ground operations inside Syrian territory is rare — and notable.

“This is no longer shadow war,” said a former EU military attaché in Lebanon who spoke to WARYATV on condition of anonymity. “We are now seeing calibrated but open military incursions with the message: Israel is willing to raise the stakes.”

Why Now? A Multi-Front Reality

According to Israeli security sources and confirmed by former U.S. CENTCOM analysts, the decision to go in on the ground reflects growing Israeli concerns about an expanded threat network stretching from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq. Hezbollah’s deeper entrenchment in southern Syria, combined with Iran’s efforts to transfer precision missile technology through the region, has heightened Israeli fears of a coordinated multi-front war.

“From an intelligence perspective, it’s about timing,” said Michael R., a retired CIA Middle East analyst. “Israel likely detected weapons or personnel movements that crossed their red lines, prompting not just airstrikes, but a need to put boots on the ground to verify, seize intel, or destroy targets directly.”

Former Israeli intelligence officer Yossi K. added that while the operation was short, it was designed to demonstrate capability: “It’s as much about deterrence as it is about degradation. If you can show you’re willing to physically cross the border, you signal to Iran and Syria that the status quo is no longer tolerable.”

Implications for Syria and Iran

Damascus has condemned the operation but is unlikely to respond directly. Instead, analysts believe Iran may task its allied militias — particularly those in southern Syria and the Iraqi border area — with retaliatory actions. Already, some pro-Iranian media outlets have called the operation an act of war.

A former EU intelligence officer based in Brussels told WARYATV, “What we’re watching is not a sudden change, but an escalation of an already intensifying campaign. Israel is shifting its policy from indirect containment to limited offensive disruption.”

He added: “The Iranians will test this. They may not respond immediately, but they rarely allow direct Israeli incursions to pass without attempting a message of their own.”

Red Sea and Gaza Ties

Several Western analysts noted that the timing also aligns with increasing Israeli military action in the Red Sea corridor and against Houthi-linked targets, amid growing fears of a broader Axis of Resistance alignment. There is also speculation that the Syria operation could help relieve pressure from the Gaza front — drawing enemy resources and attention elsewhere.

“It’s classic diversion through escalation,” one European security source said. “If the north heats up, some actors aligned with Hamas could be redirected to a northern theater.”

What Comes Next?

While the IDF has not confirmed further ground missions, all signs suggest this was not a one-off.

“What we are seeing is the start of a new phase: Israel is laying the groundwork for a more kinetic approach in Syria, possibly even clearing corridors for deeper strikes or emergency deterrent missions in the event of northern escalation,” said an Israeli defense strategist now advising a think tank in London.

WARYATV’s sources also noted that civilian evacuations in southern Syria signal anticipation of further activity.

Strategic Forecast

• Israel is moving into a posture of “active forward deterrence” beyond its borders.
• Iran is unlikely to respond directly, but will lean on militias and proxy cells.
• Syria will likely remain passive but coordinate with Iran on information-sharing.
• Hezbollah and the IRGC may test Israeli lines elsewhere — especially in Golan, the Lebanon border, or via Iraqi militias.
• Expect increased Israeli air and limited ground operations in Syria through spring 2025.

This shift, while still short of full-scale war, places the region on a tighter wire.

Exclusive for waryatv.com.