Missile infrastructure, troops in western Iran struck, army says

Israel has struck about two-thirds of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers, an Israeli military official said Thursday.

Iran is still believed to possess more than 100 launchers, the official told Reuters, but emphasized that launch systems—rather than missile stockpiles—remain Israel’s top priority.

Missile launchers are the bottleneck for their ability to fire in volume, the officials said, indicating continued strikes aimed at limiting Iran’s offensive capacity.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping urged major powers to help defuse the Iran conflict in a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, while blaming Israel for fueling the crisis and calling for an immediate ceasefire.

“The parties to the conflict, especially Israel, should cease fire as soon as possible to prevent the situation from escalating in turn and resolutely avoid the spillover of war,” Xi said, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry readout.

Putin and Xi condemned Israel’s actions, the Kremlin said, with Putin again offering Russian mediation.

A strike on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant could trigger a “Chernobyl-style catastrophe,” Russia’s nuclear chief warned Thursday, after Israel walked back an earlier statement that it had targeted the site on the Persian Gulf coast.

“If there is a strike on the operational first power unit, it will be a catastrophe comparable to Chernobyl,” said Rosatom chief Alexei Likhachev, according to state media.

Earlier today, an Israeli military spokesperson said Israel had struck the site, but an Israeli military official later called this statement "a mistake" and said he could neither confirm nor deny that the Bushehr site on the cost of the Persian Gulf had been hit.

“It was a mistake,” a military official said, clarifying that Bushehr had not been among the confirmed targets.

Bushehr, Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, was built by Russia and hosts Russian workers.

Israel accused Iran of crossing a red line after a strike hit Soroka Medical Center in Beer Sheva on Thursday, causing extensive damage.

“The dictatorship regime from Tehran has crossed the line and is acting as a barbaric terrorist organization,” Health Minister Uriel Busso said.

He condemned the attack as a “despicable war crime.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it targeted an Israeli intelligence site near a hospital. Israeli officials denied any military use of the hospital, calling the strike a deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure that demands international condemnation and potential legal scrutiny.

Amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic, the session outlined several key concerns and scenarios.

IRGC members seeking asylum

Facing potential instability, senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could flee Iran and seek refuge in Afghanistan. GDI discussed the possibility during the session that such individuals might request protection from the Taliban, according to Afghanistan International’s sources.

Risk of al-Qaeda member relocation

Senior al-Qaeda figures such as Saif al-Adel and Abu Abdulrahman, who are believed to currently reside in Iran, may attempt to escape the country amid instability. GDI has asked the Taliban leadership for guidance on how to respond if they attempt to enter Afghanistan—whether to accept them, place them under surveillance, or reject their entry altogether. This discussion was part of the internal analysis obtained by Afghanistan International.

In 2021, then–US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda leaders. US and UN intelligence agencies later confirmed that Saif al-Adel was residing in Iran and is now considered al-Qaeda’s de facto leader. In 2024, the US State Department reaffirmed that Iran continues to provide safe haven to senior al-Qaeda operatives.

Preparedness for influx of Iranian refugees

GDI has posed a critical question: Can Afghanistan absorb a possible wave of Iranian refugees? The session called for urgent contingency planning to evaluate national capacity, political risks, and humanitarian consequences.