Israel recovers bodies of three hostages from Gaza
Israel announced on Sunday that it recovered the remains of three hostages from Gaza and that their bodies had been returned to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu identified the three individuals as Yonatan Samerano, Shai Levinson and Ofra Kedar, saying they were 'murdered and taken hostage' during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and taken hostage into Gaza.
'Together with all citizens of Israel, my wife and I convey our heartfelt condolences to the dear families, and share in their deep sorrow,' Netanyahu said.
'I thank the commander and our fighters for the successful action, their determination and their courage,' he continued.
Netanyahu said Israel is continuing its effort to bring home the hostages — even as it has opened a new front with its war with Iran, with which Israel has been exchanging strikes for more than a week.
The statement came shortly after President Trump announced that the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear sites.
'The campaign to return the hostages is ongoing and is continuing in parallel to our campaign against Iran,' Netanyahu said. 'We will not rest until we return home all of our hostages, the living and the deceased.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
13 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Inside the Plot to Push Khamenei Aside
America's Saturday night attacks on Iran have amplified an ever-more open debate in Tehran over the future of the country and whether Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should remain in power. In the days leading up to the American intervention, a group of Iranian businessmen, political and military figures, and relatives of high-ranking clerics had begun hatching a plan for running Iran without Khamenei, two sources involved in the discussions told me—whether in the event of the 86-year-old leader's death or of his being pushed aside. Constitutionally, the Assembly of Experts, a body of 88 clerics, would need to vote to dismiss Khamenei from his position, but organizing such a vote under current circumstances is unlikely. The leader could also be more informally sidelined, say, by insiders who pressure or persuade him to pass real power to a temporary replacement. The plotters have agreed that a leadership committee consisting of a few high-ranking officials would take over running the country and negotiate a deal with the United States to stop the Israeli attacks. The sources were fearful of being discovered but said that they were telling me of their conversations in the hope that the exposure could help them gauge regional and international response. Among the details they shared with me are that former president Hassan Rouhani, who is not involved in the discussions, is being considered for a key role on the leadership committee, and that some of the military officials involved have been in regular contact with their counterparts from a major Gulf country, seeking buy-in for changing Iran's trajectory and the composition of its leadership. 'Ours is just one idea,' one person involved in conversations told me. 'Tehran is now full of such plots. They are also talking to Europeans about the future of Iran. Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered. Even if he stays in office, he won't have actual power.' This was before the U.S. bombardment. I reached out to this person just after the explosions in Natanz, Fordo, and Isfahan, and he said, 'I think the chances of us succeeding to somehow sideline Khamenei have now increased. But we are all worried and not sure. It could also go exactly the opposite way.' The other person I spoke with who was involved in the conversations told me that he was less optimistic now about the group's plan securing peace with the U.S. and Israel. 'But even if Iran ends up choosing a belligerent position against the United States, Khamenei might have to be pushed aside,' he said. The extent of last night's damage is currently subject to a war of narratives between Washington and Tehran. The U.S. has averred that its bombing was a spectacular success—President Donald Trump claims to have 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program— while Iran has sought to downplay the destruction, claiming that it had already moved its nuclear materiel and that the strikes had not penetrated fortified sites. Either way, the mood in Iranian circles close to the regime has bifurcated, I'm told. Some insiders, including the plotters I spoke with, want to sue for a deal with Trump, even if that means ditching Khamenei. Others believe that Iran must fight back, because otherwise it will invite further aggression. 'Iran will respond and the war will expand, even if only for the time being,' Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to the Iranian security establishment told me shortly after the attacks. I'd spoken to Najafi a day earlier. At that time, he told me that Iran had already readied itself for American intervention and several months of war. Despite a week of harsh Israeli assaults, Iran's missile and drone capacities were still considerable, he'd said, adding that Iran's long experience in asymmetric warfare left it well-situated for a prolonged battle with the United States and Israel. Iran had so far sought to avoid dragging America into the war with Israel, Najafi said—Tehran had not unleashed its regional militia allies on American interests in the region—but a U.S. direct hit could change that calculus. Iran's options would be limited in this regard, however. Lebanon's Hezbollah is a shadow of its former self and has shown little interest in joining Iran's fight with Israel and the United States. Iraq is in the midst of a national electoral campaign, making its pro-Tehran militias unlikely to want to be seen as dragging the country into a new conflict. Some in the Iranian ruling establishment have suggested that the country will now leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty and openly pursue nuclear weaponization. This fits the belligerent tone emanating even from some centrist elements. For example, before the U.S. attack, Ali Larijani, a former speaker of parliament, personally threatened Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that Iran would 'come after' him after the war. But events may be moving too fast for Khamenei to carry out longterm plans. In the days ahead, Iran may well respond with a symbolic attack, likely on U.S. bases in Iraq, Mojtaba Dehghani, a Europe-based expert with intimate knowledge of Iran's leadership told me. But Dehghani speculated that such a move would probably expand the war and end in Khamenei's downfall, as a rival faction would then be motivated to seize the reins and seek peace with the United States. For years, Khamenei has led his country in chants of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' while avoiding fighting either on Iran's home turf. Now Iranian territory is under fire from both. The country faces a stark choice. Either it expands the war and risks additionally antagonizing the Gulf countries that host American bases, or it seeks a historic compromise with the U.S. that would mean giving up its decades-long hostility. Khamenei's stance is at once recalcitrant and cautious to the point of cowardice. Elites around him are wondering whether he will have to be tossed aside in pursuit of either course.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. "I think our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons program," Vice President JD Vance told NBC on Meet The Press on Sunday. "We're not at war with Iran," Vance insisted, adding, "We're at war with Iran's nuclear program." "We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program, and that's exactly what the president accomplished last night," Vance explained. Why It Matters The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer—in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz marks the first direct involvement of American in the escalating crises between Iran and Israel. The action has received backlash, with many citing the lack of Congressional approval for the military move. What To Know President Donald Trump decided to continue with the planned attack because he believed the Iranians "stopped negotiating in good faith," according to Vance. Opportunity was another factor for the timing of the strikes, with Vance saying they had a "narrow window in which" to "set that program back," adding, "Which is why Fordow was destroyed last night." When asked if the strikes have completely destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities, Vance declined to discuss specifics, citing it as intelligence, but did say the nuclear program had been pushed back considerably. Vance described the strikes as an opportunity for a "reset" in U.S.-Iran relations and reiterated that the administration remained open to negotiation if Tehran abandoned its nuclear ambitions. "I really think there are two big questions for the Iranians here. Are they going to attack American troops, or are they going to continue with their nuclear weapons program?" Vance said. "And if they leave American troops out of it, and they decide to give up their nuclear weapons program once and for all, then I think the president has been very clear, we can have a good relationship with the Iranians." Vance also responded to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declaration that the strikes were the end of diplomacy, saying, "We didn't blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians. "Our hope…is that this maybe can reset here," he continued. President Donald Trump, right, and Vice President JD Vance sit in the Situation Room on Saturday, June 21, 2025, at the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump, right, and Vice President JD Vance sit in the Situation Room on Saturday, June 21, 2025, at the White House in Washington. The White House via AP Earlier Sunday during a press conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation, executed with B-2 bombers and decoy maneuvers, avoided confrontation with Iranian air defenses and resulted in "significant destruction" at all three target sites. In the wake of the strikes, Iran's Revolutionary Guard launched missiles at Israel, injuring civilians and damaging infrastructure. Israel claimed it swiftly neutralized the threat and responded militarily against positions in western Iran. What People Are Saying Vice President JD Vance said Sunday on Meet The Press: "We felt very strongly that the Iranians were stonewalling us. They weren't taking this seriously. They were trying to draw this process out as long as possible so that they could rebuild their nuclear weapons program without the threat of American action. We had a limited window in which we could take out this Fordow nuclear facility." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference Sunday morning: "This is a plan that took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president of the United States called. It took a great deal of precision. It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security." What Happens Next The Pentagon has said that additional strikes remain possible if Iran retaliates. Global leaders have called for diplomatic engagement to prevent a larger war, while both U.S. and Iranian officials have stated conflicting intentions for the path forward. The status of Iran's nuclear material and capabilities has not been fully determined at this time.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Graham: Trump ‘had all the authority he needs under the Constitution' for Iran strikes
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a Sunday morning interview pushed back on claims that President Trump acted outside his Constitutional authority by ordering strikes on Iran. 'No, he was within his Article II authority,' Graham said in an interview on NBC News's 'Meet the Press,' when asked if Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by 'acting unilaterally.' 'Congress can declare war or cut off funding,' Graham continued. 'We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander in chiefs.' 'If you don't like what the president does, in terms of war, you can cut off the funding. But declaring war is left of the Congress. We've declared war five times in the history of America. All of these other military operations were lawful.' 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution. They are wrong,' he added, referring to critics who say Trump should have sought congressional approval before ordering strikes on the three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend. Trump announced Saturday the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow site located in a mountainside. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump added. 'Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations.
