Iran hits back: Missiles pound Israel as crisis grows
'In the last hour, dozens of missiles have been launched at the state of Israel from Iran, some of which were intercepted,' it said, adding that rescue teams were working at a number of locations across the country where fallen projectiles were reported.
A hospital in Tel Aviv treated seven people wounded in the second Iranian barrage; all but one of them had light injuries. Israel's Fire and Rescue Services said they were injured when a projectile hit a building in the city. A spokesperson for Beilinson Hospital said one woman was killed.
Australian Olympic medallist and former Labor senator Nova Peris posted on social media from Tel Aviv, calling the experience 'extremely frightening and distressing'.
'It's after 2am here in Israel. I'm with 11 other Australians, including several First Nations brothers and sisters,' wrote Peris, who has been outspoken in her support of Israel and received an award for opposition to antisemitism from an Israeli university last week.
'Like so many here, we're just doing what Israelis do every day, seeking shelter, staying strong, and praying for peace,' she said.
Hours later, an Iranian missile struck near homes in the central Israeli city of Rishon Lezion, killing two people and injuring 19, according to Israel's paramedic service Magen David Adom. Israel's Fire and Rescue Service said four homes were severely damaged.
Israeli strikes continued in Iran, where sirens and several explosions were heard in the capital Tehran, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency. The sound of explosions and Iranian air defence systems firing at targets echoed across central Tehran shortly after midnight on Saturday.
The Fars news agency, which is linked to the Iranian Republican Guard, said two projectiles hit Tehran's Mehrabad airport, with flames reported there. The airport is close to Iranian leadership sites and hosts an air force base with fighter jets and transport aircraft.
Iran's UN ambassador Amir-Saeid Iravani told the UN Security Council on Friday that Israel's attacks killed 78 people and injured more than 320 others.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, announced the start of the retaliatory attack in a recorded message carried by state television.
'We will not allow them to get away with this great crime they committed,' he said. 'The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic will deal heavy blows to this enemy.'
Iran denies that its uranium enrichment activities are part of a secret weapons program, although Western countries have long accused Iran of refining uranium there to levels suitable for a bomb rather than civilian use.
Threat of war escalates
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack had been planned since November and strikes would continue until the nuclear threat posed by Iran was removed.
Israel's operation 'will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat', he said in a TV address.
'Generations from now, history will record our generation stood its ground, acted in time and secured our common future.'
He called for regime change in Iran. 'As we achieve our objective, we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,' adding: 'Our fight is against the murderous Islamic regime that oppresses and impoverishes you. This is your opportunity to stand up and let your voices be heard.'
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged Israel and Iran to halt their attacks on one another, while calling for diplomacy.
Loading
'Israeli bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian missile strikes in Tel Aviv. Enough escalation. Time to stop. Peace and diplomacy must prevail,' Guterres wrote on X on Saturday.
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said on Saturday the government had confirmed Australia's officials and small number of military staff in Iran and Israel were all safe at present. He called for de-escalation from all sides of the conflict in the Middle East and made a direct plea to Iran to temper its actions.
'The government is deeply concerned about events which are unfolding in the Middle East and specifically, we are concerned about the risks of escalation,' he said.
'We specifically call on Iran to exercise restraint in their actions so as not to risk any broader conflict.'
US military defends Israel from missiles
American air defence systems and a Navy destroyer helped Israel shoot down incoming ballistic missiles on Friday, US officials said.
The US has both ground-based Patriot missile defence systems and Terminal High Altitude Air Defence systems in the Middle East that are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.
A Navy destroyer in the eastern Mediterranean Sea also shot down Iranian missiles heading towards Israel, one official said. The United States is also shifting military resources, including ships, in the Middle East in response to the strikes.
US President Donald Trump said Iran has a second chance to negotiate a nuclear deal and stave off 'even more brutal' attacks being planned by Israel in coming days.
In a series of short phone interviews with US media, Trump indicated he was fully aware of Israel's operations in advance, and said that Iran must make a deal that forbids it from developing a nuclear weapon 'before there is nothing left'.
'We knew everything,' Trump told Reuters of Israel's attack plans. 'I tried to save Iran humiliation and death. I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out. They can still work out a deal, however. It's not too late.'
The Israeli strikes on Iran throughout the day and the Iranian retaliation raised fears of a broader regional conflagration, though Iran's allies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have been decimated by Israel.
Ayatollah Khamenei accused Israel of starting a war. A senior Iranian official said nowhere in Israel would be safe and revenge would be painful.
Iran's UN envoy Iravani accused the US of being complicit in the attacks and said it shared full responsibility for the consequences.
Loading
Israel's UN envoy, Danny Danon, said intelligence had confirmed that within days Iran would have produced enough fissile material for several bombs. He called Israel's operation 'an act of national preservation'.
Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. The UN nuclear watchdog concluded this week that it was in violation of its obligations under the global non-proliferation treaty.
Tehran had been engaged in talks with the Trump administration on a deal to curb its nuclear program to replace one that Trump abandoned in 2018. Tehran rejected the last US offer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
25 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The taboo question: At what point does America become unworthy as our ally?
Last week, a man named Alex Padilla attended a press conference held by US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. He attempted to ask questions. Federal agents pushed him out of the room. In the hallway, now on his knees, he fell to the floor, where he was handcuffed. Padilla, as you may have read, is a US senator. In Australia, meanwhile, the debate around our security arrangements with America was renewed after it emerged that the Trump administration was conducting a review of AUKUS. Quickly, the debate narrowed to the usual three pragmatic questions: How does this position us in relation to China? Will we ever get any submarines? And is America still a reliable ally? Good questions all. A question of quite a different sort, meanwhile, was contemplated by Australian Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, who told The Australian Financial Review: The question I keep asking myself is what should I be doing? Schmidt was explaining his decision to sign an open letter addressing the 'resurgence of fascism' around the world. The letter was signed by hundreds of intellectual figures, including 30 Nobel Prize winners. 'True to the old fascist script,' they wrote, 'under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, [authoritarian leaders] undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education, and science; even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information.' The letter did not specify particular nations but there has been a debate for some years now about whether Trumpism is a form of fascism. Historian Robert Paxton, an expert in the era in which fascism became a dominant force, and who had resisted using the label, wrote in 2021 that he had changed his view. After the attack on the US Capitol, he realised: 'The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it.' The debate is important in part because, as author Daniel Trilling recently wrote, recognising a movement as fascist 'enables us to spot its destructive potential before it fully discloses itself'. We don't need to resolve that debate to see the thread of violence that runs through Donald Trump's actions. Padilla's treatment is in one sense the most minor: it lacks the threatening atmospherics of Trump sending in marines and the National Guard to California, or the nastiness of immigration agents forcibly taking people. But it is the totality of events that is sinister, which is to render anyone opposing Trump a problem: protesters against the system are treated as enemies; so are those working within the system. AUKUS, with its pros and cons, commands many column inches in this country; periodically it becomes the central topic of political debate, as it did last week. Similarly, there is much discussion of Trump's authoritarianism; and sometimes it flares up, as last week. Strangely, though, the two are rarely brought together. Instead, they tend to be treated as two separate issues, siloed from each other. It seems almost taboo to ask the simple question: at what point does America become the type of country we no longer want to ally with?
The Age
29 minutes ago
- The Age
The taboo question: At what point does America become unworthy as our ally?
Last week, a man named Alex Padilla attended a press conference held by US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. He attempted to ask questions. Federal agents pushed him out of the room. In the hallway, now on his knees, he fell to the floor, where he was handcuffed. Padilla, as you may have read, is a US senator. In Australia, meanwhile, the debate around our security arrangements with America was renewed after it emerged that the Trump administration was conducting a review of AUKUS. Quickly, the debate narrowed to the usual three pragmatic questions: How does this position us in relation to China? Will we ever get any submarines? And is America still a reliable ally? Good questions all. A question of quite a different sort, meanwhile, was contemplated by Australian Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, who told The Australian Financial Review: The question I keep asking myself is what should I be doing? Schmidt was explaining his decision to sign an open letter addressing the 'resurgence of fascism' around the world. The letter was signed by hundreds of intellectual figures, including 30 Nobel Prize winners. 'True to the old fascist script,' they wrote, 'under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, [authoritarian leaders] undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education, and science; even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information.' The letter did not specify particular nations but there has been a debate for some years now about whether Trumpism is a form of fascism. Historian Robert Paxton, an expert in the era in which fascism became a dominant force, and who had resisted using the label, wrote in 2021 that he had changed his view. After the attack on the US Capitol, he realised: 'The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it.' The debate is important in part because, as author Daniel Trilling recently wrote, recognising a movement as fascist 'enables us to spot its destructive potential before it fully discloses itself'. We don't need to resolve that debate to see the thread of violence that runs through Donald Trump's actions. Padilla's treatment is in one sense the most minor: it lacks the threatening atmospherics of Trump sending in marines and the National Guard to California, or the nastiness of immigration agents forcibly taking people. But it is the totality of events that is sinister, which is to render anyone opposing Trump a problem: protesters against the system are treated as enemies; so are those working within the system. AUKUS, with its pros and cons, commands many column inches in this country; periodically it becomes the central topic of political debate, as it did last week. Similarly, there is much discussion of Trump's authoritarianism; and sometimes it flares up, as last week. Strangely, though, the two are rarely brought together. Instead, they tend to be treated as two separate issues, siloed from each other. It seems almost taboo to ask the simple question: at what point does America become the type of country we no longer want to ally with?
Sky News AU
30 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Australia warned it could 'never replicate' at risk AUKUS deal as Anthony Albanese prepares for crucial talks with Donald Trump
A foreign policy expert has warned Australia and the United Kingdom could "never replicate" AUKUS without support from the United States ahead of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's crucial meeting with President Donald Trump. Concerns about President Trump's approach to AUKUS were raised to new heights following the announcement last week his administration was launching a review into the the trilateral pact. Set to be led by AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby, the review has stoked fears the US could walk away from the agreement in what would come as a huge blow to Australia's defence and strategic plan. Mr Albanese is now facing significant pressure to convince President Trump of AUKUS' value, with many analysts expecting the US leader will pressure his Australian counterpart on defence spending when the two meet on the sidelines of the G7 on Wednesday. British Foreign Policy Group senior research and programs manager Eliza Keogh warned there was a "real possibility" President Trump would pull out of the pact, with the Australian and UK governments now jointly scrambling to keep the deal alive. "AUKUS offers clear strategic advantages for the US - from regional proximity to China, to access to Australian facilities for docking and servicing - and there is a possibility the review could just be the Trump administration increasing pressure on Australia to boost its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP," she told "Nevertheless, there is a real possibility the US could withdraw from AUKUS, particularly with AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby leading the review. "The Trump administration's tendency to prioritise short-term political calculations over strategic foresight means that it may opt to withdraw from AUKUS, despite its long-term focus on countering the rise of China, as short term interests - predominantly keeping US-built submarines at home - will win out." Several analysts and observers have highlighted flagging US submarine manufacturing as a potential dealbreaker, with the nation at risk of missing its goal to increase the size of its fleet to 66 vessels by 2049. Debate over the provision of Virginia class submarines to Australia - a stop-gap measure to ensure Australia remains well equipped while AUKUS vessels are constructed - has raged for almost two years and has drawn scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans. Some have suggested President Trump may demand Australia increase the $3 billion it will send to the US to help offset production costs for the submarines in order to ensure the deal remains on tract, although Mr Albanese ruled out that possibility in 2023 and appears unlikely to change course. Instead, the Prime Minister is expected to emphasise the in-kind benefits AUKUS provides the US during his sit down with President Trump, while also pointing to Labor's $57 billion boost to defence spending over the next decade. According to Ms Keogh, highlighting Australia's role in deterring Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific is likely to be another effective tactic given the US' desire to see "partners stepping up in the region". She also offered a more radical solution, which, while likely to appease President Trump, could also leave Australia dependent on the US until the first AUKUS vessels come online in the 2030s. "If they are looking to placate Trump, UK and Australian negotiators could look to renegotiate parts of the deal, including offering to loan submarines back to the US if necessary," Ms Keogh said. It remains to be seen what, if any concessions, Mr Albanese makes to the US President, but the foreign policy expert warned it would be impossible to replace AUKUS should Australia and the UK fail to maintain American support. "The UK and Australia have already agreed to negotiate a bilateral AUKUS treaty, but this could never replicate the scale and weight of the trilateral agreement," Ms Keogh said. Publicly both nations have sought to downplay the risk of US withdrawal, with Britain's Labour government highlighting the fact it held a similar review after it came to power. However, Ms Keogh explained officials were privately "very nervous" about how the Trump administration would proceed. The UK has made a flurry of announcements, including a pointed commitment to boost its own submarine production in coming years, as it attempts to demonstrate it is serious about raising its defence spend. Meanwhile, the Australian government has taken a different approach, pushing back against US calls to increase spending and insisting its current strategic plans are adequate. This has prompted intense criticism from a number of leading defence experts, who warn Australia is both weaker and less capable then in previous decades while also at risk of jeopardising its relationship with its most significant defence partner.
