10 Days Of Israel-Iran War In 10 Points: How It Started To How It Is Going Explained
Operation Rising Lion, True Promise III & Hammer: As the Israel-Iran war continues and with the US now officially a part of it, a look at the key 10 moments of the past 10 days
From plans to destroy Iran's nuclear programme to talks of a regime change, a lot has happened in the Israel-Iran conflict since June 13.
US President Donald Trump, who has been involved in the verbal attack on Iran since day one, officially joined the war with Operation Hammer on Saturday night. The onslaught of Iran's nuclear plants was the most violent moment of his two terms and America's 46-year showdown with the Islamic Republic. Flush with the spoils of battle, Trump is toying with the idea of regime change.
Meanwhile, both Israel and Iran remain adamant, consolidating support from friendly countries. While Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump and resolved to fight, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the 'Zionist regime" in Israel is being 'punished" and that 'Americans should expect greater damage and blows than ever before". Iran is also planning to close the Strait of Hormuz, a move that may have global impact.
As the war continues, a look at the key 10 moments of the past 10 days:
With Agency Inputs
tags :
israel iran Israel Iran tension us iran conflict
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
June 23, 2025, 12:18 IST
News explainers 10 Days Of Israel-Iran War In 10 Points: How It Started To How It Is Going Explained
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump, his tariffs still face challenge in court
President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade, a specialised federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes tariffs on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges one by five businesses and one by 12 US states into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specialises in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad that the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his One Big Beautiful Bill,' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The US Constitution gives the power to impose taxes including tariffs to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 per cent, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the US border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 Liberation Day,' Trump called it he invoked IEEPA to announce reciprocal' tariffs of up to 50 per cent on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10 per cent baseline' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorise the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an unusual and extraordinary' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs exceed any authority granted to the President' under the emergency powers law. The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they deal with' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to US national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term and President Joe Biden kept after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
US bans 7 Indian companies!
videoDetails US bans 7 Indian companies! Yashwant Bhaskar | Updated: Jul 31, 2025, 10:34 AM IST America Bans Indian Companies: The US has warned that any country or individual buying oil or petrochemicals from Iran is subject to US sanctions and will be barred from doing business with the US. Trump has also announced tariffs on India.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Birthright citizenship: Travelling to give birth in US? Visa may be denied
The US government has warned that visas will be cancelled if applicants are found travelling to the country with the primary intention of giving birth to secure citizenship for their child. 'Using your visa to travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States so that your child will have US citizenship is not permitted,' said the US Mission to Nigeria in a post on social media. 'Consular officers will deny your visa application if they have reason to believe this is your intent.' The warning comes as part of a broader tightening of visa rules under the current administration. What is birth tourism? Birth tourism refers to the practice of travelling to the US to give birth so that the child receives American citizenship. Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, anyone born on US soil is granted citizenship, regardless of the parents' immigration status. Former President Donald Trump has long objected to this, describing it as a misuse of citizenship laws. During his first term, the White House issued a fact sheet criticising the practice, saying, 'The administration is taking action to end 'birth tourism' – a practice in which aliens travel to the United States with the purpose of giving birth to gain citizenship for their children.' That statement also accused organised groups of helping women exploit a 'loophole' to obtain citizenship for their babies. Court challenges mount against Trump's executive order Despite the warning, several federal judges across the US have blocked attempts by the Trump administration to end birthright citizenship. Most recently, US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts said the executive order was unconstitutional. 'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the legal challenge. 'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Judge Sorokin said a nationwide injunction would remain in place. He also rejected the government's proposal to limit the scope of the ruling, saying a fragmented approach would be impractical because people often move between states. In his judgment, he wrote, 'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes.' The Supreme Court, in a separate ruling last month, said lower courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions. But it did not stop class-action rulings or those led by states from having broad effects. What the plaintiffs are arguing Those opposing the executive order say it goes against the Constitution. In the Boston case, the plaintiffs said the 14th Amendment enshrines the principle of birthright citizenship and that the President does not have the authority to override it. They warned the order would strip citizenship from children based on their parentage and would also hurt states financially. Several states rely on federal funds to provide services like foster care, special needs programmes, and healthcare for low-income children. If the executive order were allowed to stand, they argue, states would lose support for services that are tied to citizenship status. The administration has countered this by claiming that the children of non-citizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore do not automatically qualify for citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' said Abigail Jackson, the White House spokeswoman. The administration has yet to appeal the latest rulings, but the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.
