Trump-Iran latest: US Secretary of Defense rages at coverage of bombing after ayatollah threatens further attacks
Recap: Iran's Supreme leader vows 'victory' over US and Israel
Iran will not hesitate to bomb more US air bases in the Middle East, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned.
In his first public appearance since the US attacked Iran's three nuclear facilities on Sunday morning, Khamenei claimed the Islamic Republic had access to 'key US centres' and would take action 'when necessary'.
He also claimed Iran had won a victory over Israel and the US, delivering a 'slap to the US's face' by attacking its Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
'Such an action can be repeated in the future too. Should any aggression occur, the enemy will definitely pay a heavy price,' Khamenei said.
Alexander Butler26 June 2025 19:30
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Israel close to accomplishing objectives in Gaza, says IDF
Israel is close to accomplishing its current objectives in Gaza, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Their claim comes amid reports that ceasefire prospects between Israel and Hamas are improving, again raising hopes that the 20-month conflict could come to an end. The White House is putting increasing pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to bring an end to the war, which began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7 2023. Also suggesting an end is in sight, Qatar, who have mediated ceasefire talks, urged Israel and Hamas to take the 'window of opportunity' for a new hostage deal in the wake of the end of Israel's 12-day war with Iran. Lt Gen Eyal Zamir, the IDF chief of staff, said on Friday that Israel's operation would soon 'reach the lines' defined by the government, which would see the military assert control over 75 per cent of Gaza territory. 'In the near future, we will reach the lines we defined for the current phase within the framework of Gideon's Chariots,' Mr Zamir said during a visit to the Gaza Strip. The IDF's operational plans for Gideon's Chariots, reported by The Times of Israel, had indicated that it would take two months to capture 75 per cent of Gaza. Now the government will need to decide if it pushes for full control or ends the operation, analysts have said, with the options expected to be put to the cabinet on Sunday. 'From there, operational options will develop that will be presented to the political echelon,' said Mr Zamir, adding that the IDF 'will continue to act with determination to achieve the two objectives of the campaign, the release of the hostages and the defeat of Hamas.' Mr Netanyahu has so far said only that Israel would carry on in its attacks until it had completely destroyed Hamas, and Right-wing members of his coalition – upon whom he relies in order to govern – have called for him to seize full control of the Strip. However, Donald Trump, the US president, is pushing Israel to conclude its offensive following what he has deemed a successful 12-day war against Iran. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump suggested that a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal would be reached 'within the next week', having said earlier in the week that 'great progress' had been made in ceasefire talks. Mr Netanyahu may calculate that he must keep Mr Trump onside and therefore work towards a deal, secure the release of the remaining Gaza hostages, and call an election in an attempt to capitalise on a bump in popularity in the wake of the war with Iran. Mr Zamir also said of Israel's war with Iran: 'Iran took a heavy blow. There is potential that the blow caused to Iran will advance our goals in Gaza,' he said. Gaza mediators are engaging with Israel and Hamas to build on momentum from the ceasefire with Iran and work towards a truce in the Palestinian territory, Majed al-Ansari, a Qatar foreign ministry spokesman, said. 'If we don't utilise this window of opportunity and this momentum, it's an opportunity lost amongst many in the near past. We don't want to see that again,' said Mr Ansari, who is also an adviser to Qatar's prime minister. An official with knowledge of the situation said that Ron Dermer, the Israeli minister for strategic affairs, would arrive in Washington next week for talks on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. Mr Zamir's comments came the day before Israeli strikes killed at least 62 people across Gaza, according to reports from inside the Hamas-run territory. Three children and their parents were killed in an Israeli strike on a tent camp in Muwasi near the southern city of Khan Younis. They were struck while sleeping, relatives said. 'What did these children do to them? What is their fault?' said Suad Abu Teima, the children's grandmother, as reported by the Associated Press. Also among the dead were 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital. More than 20 bodies were taken to Nasser hospital, according to health officials. The war has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It said more than half of the dead were women and children, and that they included 6,089 people killed since the end of the latest ceasefire. Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis, and took 254 hostages inside Gaza. About 50 remain in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict
Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations. This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement. As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government. We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues. It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time. When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation. I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks. Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous. I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates. It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war. Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous. There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime. That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression. Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand. You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective. Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be. Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader. Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime. So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention. My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed. My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware. She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Middle class youngsters chanting for death shows how sick Britain now is
The spectacle of massed crowds calling for the blood of Jews is more associated with Islamist dictatorships than our own democracies. On October 7, however, something foul awoke in the West. Less than two years later, we find thousands of white youngsters from the leafy suburbs of Middle England chanting 'death, death to the IDF' at the Glastonbury Festival of a Saturday afternoon. Would that be the same IDF that delivered us from the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran with remarkably few civilian casualties? Which rescued us from the regime described by the head of MI5 as 'the state actor which most frequently crosses into terrorism' on our shores? Why, yes. Yes it would. Your average Glasto fan, it seems, would have no objection if Tehran's thugs brought the 'intifada' over here, perhaps with a nuclear bomb on London, so long as they brought death to Israel first. Such is the way with brainless trends, even when the fashion is for bloodlust. What Jewish festival-goers must have felt amidst that display of depravity is enough to make you ashamed of our country. Don't forget, this gory chapter began with a massacre of revellers at the Nova music festival; in a sane world, you'd have expected Glastonbury to fly the Israeli flag in solidarity and chant for the demise of Hamas. The cleanness of the Iran campaign shows how the IDF can operate when its enemy does not push civilians into harm's way for the benefit of the international media. Clearly, Israel is not trying to kill the innocent. Has that thought occurred to any of the Glasto cultists? Of course not. As transparent as it may be, Hamas propaganda is a roaring success when people get their kicks out of believing it. Depressingly, this has become the new normal. There literally is no evil so dark that it cannot find enthusiastic support on the Western Left, so long as that evil first wishes death upon the Jews. Astonishingly, that principle holds even if the evil happens to wish death upon us second. It's true what they say: antisemitism is a sickness and at bottom it is a hatred of ourselves. Whether Bob Vylan, the dreadlocked rapper who led Saturday's version of Orwell's Two Minutes Hate, was breaking the law is beside the point. Legislation is limited when the culture moves beyond it. Even the BBC's attempts at decorum – they had refused to broadcast the performance by Kneecap, the Irish band which has supported Hamas and Hezbollah and demanded that people kill their local Tory MPs – collapsed when put to the test. Shamefully, the 'death to the IDF' chant was beamed out by our national broadcaster into millions of homes. On Thursday, Sir Michael Eavis, the founder of Glastonbury, defiantly insisted that people should 'go somewhere else' if they did not like the politics of his festival. By Saturday, we saw what those politics meant: a carnival of bloodthirsty radicalism that would have been unrecognisable in the Britain of our parents. Jeremy Corbyn may have epitomised the vacuity of the Gaza Left by praising a banner saying 'build bridges not walls' that was literally pinned to a wall, but the joke is wearing thin. In May, a Palestine activist murdered two Israeli diplomats in Washington DC. Last week, Palestine activists sabotaged RAF aircraft vital to our national security. Yet still the simpering BBC fawns over the Eavis clan. For years, sensible people have scratched their heads at how the Left can have come to support jihadis. At the Glastonbury festival of narcissism, however, it has become difficult to tell them apart.
