Why is Israel attacking Iran? Trump responds to Israel attack. Here's what to know.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strikes — called Operation Rising Lion — were "a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival", according to news officials.
Netanyahu said in the statement, that the operation "will continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat." He said "we struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment program, we struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear weaponization program, we targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz, we targeted Iran's leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile program."
Iran fired back in retaliation Friday morning, launching over 100 drones toward Israel, according to news reports.
President Donald Trump said the United States was not involved in the strikes, although he was aware of Israel's plans before the attack.
In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote on Friday morning, "I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come - And they know how to use it. Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
Iran has reported that six scientists have been killed, including the head of the Revolutionary Guard's missile program Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh and Iran's highest ranking military officer, Major General Mohammad Bagheri.
Trump told reporters on Friday, that the U.S. "of course " supports Israel and called the overnight strikes on Iran "a very successful attack." He also warned Iran to agree to a nuclear deal 'before there is nothing left.'
According to CNN, Trump spoke with Netanyahu several times on Thursday, prior to the launch and he "believes the attack was a result of Iran failing to strike an agreement on a new nuclear deal before his 60-day deadline expired." It is reported that the two are set to speak again later Friday.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Why did Israel attack Iran? Trump responds to Israel attacks on Iran
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
34 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Don't look away from what's happening in Iran
As an Iranian-American who has lived and worked as a journalist in Iran — and who spent 100 days imprisoned there — I feel both anguish and dread watching history repeat itself. The leaders of the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic are jockeying over claims of victory, while human rights abuses and the everyday suffering of ordinary Iranians have started to fade, once again, from the headlines. Advertisement During the 12 days of war, more than 700 people were accused of being 'Israeli operatives' and were arrested, according to the state-affiliated Fars News Agency. Human rights groups Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Meanwhile, Iran's parliament has Advertisement It's no surprise that a regime blindsided by a foreign enemy's highly coordinated attacks would now move swiftly to root out what it sees as security threats. But the regime is not just fighting foreign adversaries. It is using the war as a pretext to crack down on domestic dissent. Having experienced firsthand the lack of due process and transparency within the Islamic Republic's judicial system, I have no doubt that many innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit. In 2009, after six years of living and working in Iran as a journalist, I was arrested and accused of spying for the United States. My interrogators claimed that the CIA had paid me to use a book I was writing about Iran as a cover for espionage. 'It's not possible you could be conducting so many interviews,' one insisted, 'only for a book.' Like many Iranian political prisoners, I was held in solitary confinement and subjected to grueling interrogations, unable to inform anyone of my whereabouts. The authorities threatened my loved ones, fabricated evidence, and warned that espionage could result in many years in prison, and even the death penalty. For decades the regime has accused journalists, civil society leaders, women's rights activists, lawyers, academics, environmentalists, and humanitarian workers of committing crimes against the state — sometimes under a charge of espionage. During my time in Tehran's notorious Advertisement My own sentence was eight years, but I was lucky. After an Countless others — especially those without the support of a foreign government or the attention of the international media — have not been so fortunate. The regime expends enormous resources interrogating citizens, monitoring internet activity and phone calls, pressuring people to inform on one another, and tailing them in the streets, in cars, even on flights abroad. 'If the system worked well, they would have found the real spies and prevented Israel from doing so much damage,' an Iranian friend told me. 'But instead, the regime took people like you and claimed you were spies.' Today, many of those being swept up in the regime's dragnet appear to be suffering the same fate. Detainees are being fast-tracked through unfair trials in kangaroo courts without legal representation or due process, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran. The Iranian regime is responding with repression because 'it knows it won't collapse due to foreign intervention alone,' says Rebin Rahmani, a board member of the Paris-based Advertisement This crackdown, in other words, was predictable. Afsoon Najafi, whose youngest sister, Hadis, was shot and killed by security forces during nationwide protests in 2022, told me, 'A large percentage of Iranians will again be killed by the Islamic Republic because the regime's agents are full of resentment toward Iranians. And the regime's own agents also know that we know they're scared.' Regardless of whether US and Iranian officials resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the Trump administration has an opportunity to show that human rights matter, too. That means, among other things, supporting Iranians' access to information — for example, by restoring full funding to Voice of America Persian, a crucial source of uncensored news for millions in Iran. American citizens can also play a role. By calling their members of Congress and expressing support for measures like the Steps like those from the American people, even if their message isn't taken up by Congress and the current administration, would still send a clear signal to Iran: Human rights abuses will not be ignored. When I asked an artist in Tehran what she hoped the world would understand about the Iranian people now that a fragile cease-fire is in place, she said on condition of anonymity, 'I don't know what the people of the world can do, but I want them not to be indifferent to the pain we're enduring.' 'At the very least,' she added, 'let us remain in the news. Let them keep an eye on us.' Advertisement If the world fails to keep an eye on the Iranian people, we risk silently sanctioning yet another chapter of repression in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
