Trump urges for ‘everyone to leave Tehran' after broadcaster bombed live on air
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Donald Trump has urged for everyone to 'evacuate Tehran' after a broadcaster was bombed live on air .
The US President urged people to leave the country as the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates.
Tensions reached new levels last week, after Israeli forces struck nuclear and military infrastructure in Iran.
Trump confirmed he would be leaving the G7 security summit being held in Canada, and criticised Iran for refusing to agree to a nuclear deal.
Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
'I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!'
He later added: 'AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!'
An Israeli strike hit Iran's state broadcaster on Monday while a reporter was live on air.
Footage shows the reporter delivering a bulletin on the war while the building begins to shake around her.
The background then becomes dark and dust and smoke can be seen behind her, as she quickly stands up from her desk to make her escape.
G7 leaders described Iran as 'the principal source of regional instability and terror' as conflict rages in the Middle East, adding they 'affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself'.
The confrontation between the two Middle Eastern nations shows no indication of abating despite international pleas for calm.
The UK yesterday placed Israel alongside Iran on its travel red list, blocking anyone from visiting the country as its conflict with Iran escalates. More Trending
Israeli rescue teams spent Sunday morning searching for survivors in the rubble of a multistorey building south of Tel Aviv, after an Iranian missile strike killed six.
Nearly 200 were reportedly wounded in the attack on the Bat Yam neighbourhood, while a further four were said to have been killed in a separate strike on a town in the north of the country.
Meanwhile the Iranian ambassador to the UN said 78 people have been killed and more than 320 wounded in Iran since Friday, with top military officials and nuclear scientists among them.
State television said a further 60 were killed in an Israeli strike on a block of flats in Tehran, including 20 children.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Starmer stoops to pick up UK-US trade agreement papers dropped by Trump
MORE: Trump launches his own mobile network with a $499 gold phone
MORE: Is it safe to travel to Turkey? Latest Foreign Office tourist advice
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jack Straw: The world hasn't felt this dangerous since the Cuban missile crisis
I have been frequently asked in the last few days whether I could recall a time as dangerous as this feels today. Yes, the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. That was terrifying for the whole world, as the two major superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, faced off. I was scared stiff. After 13 days, when the world really did appear to hold its breath, the crisis was resolved by diplomatic means. And so to the question today and the threat of this sparking a nuclear armageddon we live in fear of – existential or otherwise. Violence is literally chaos. Wars rarely go according to plan. History shows us that a relatively prosaic error by one commander on the ground can sometimes spark a conflagration. Thus, nothing is certain about the Iran - Israel conflict right now. Could Pakistan – and other countries in the region – come out actively to support Iran in its struggle with Israel, as was reported yesterday? Frankly, I see little prospect of Pakistan, or other key Muslim countries, or Russia or China, getting involved militarily in this conflict. Suggestions on Monday that Pakistan could use its nuclear arsenal against Israel if the latter uses nuclear weapons against Iran came not from any official Pakistani spokesperson, but from a General Mohsen Rezaee of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in a TV interview in Tehran. These suggestions have not been confirmed by any official Pakistani source. The odds of Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran are long, to non-existent. It is almost certain that Donald Trump would veto such a move, and the Israelis have such an upper hand in the conflict that they would not need to contemplate this. Iran itself is close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, but it has not yet done so. On Sunday, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was reported as telling his cabinet, 'We expect Muslim and [Middle East] regional countries to adopt a clear, firm, and effective position against the aggression of the Zionists and their supporters'. But even if there were such a crazy attack by Israel, would Pakistan join in? Almost certainly not. Pakistan is Iran's neighbour, but relations between the two countries have in recent times been far from easy, and Pakistan's military leaders would be taking leave of their senses to use nuclear weapons in support of Iran. The US, a major financial backer, would be strongly opposed, and so would China, Pakistan's most important and long-standing ally. Sadly, however, for the beleaguered Iranian president, all that Iran's erstwhile allies, like Russia and China, have done so far is to issue formulaic statements condemning Israel's aggression. Yes, countries in the region have expressed mounting concern and have called for restraint, but no more. In Lebanon, the secretary general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, has declared his 'support [for] the Islamic Republic of Iran in its rights and position, and in all the steps and measures it takes to defend itself and its choices'. To my mind's eye, what is striking is that no action in support of Iran has followed. Hezbollah plainly do not wish to get involved. Before he was ousted last December, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad could have proved a formidable ally of Iran, but his regime is no more. Hamas is but a shadow of what it was. Indeed, only the Houthis in Yemen appear so far to be willing to take concrete military action in support of Iran, though the damage they could do, not least to impede shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, could be serious with a spike in oil prices. Where else could we feel the sharp end of an attack? Britain does have two important military bases in its 'sovereign areas' in Cyprus; there's also a UK Naval Support Facility in Bahrain. The UK also has a military presence in other Middle East nations like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE. These could be attacked by Iran or its proxies with the idea of dragging the UK directly into the war. I am sure adequate steps are being taken to increase security at each base, and it's also hard to see what advantage Iran would gain from any attack. One of the many fascinations about Iran (and I confess, I am addicted, for which there is no known cure) is that although those who speak out too far can easily end up in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, there are still quite a variety of views being reported in the Iranian press, or being published by courageous bloggers. While Iranian papers carried entirely predictable denunciations of the 'Zionist entity' – hardliners cannot bring themselves to use the word 'Israel' – and of its allies, including the US, France, Germany, and the UK, there is something more curious happening that is worth noting. There is a really very surprising public debate that is being had alongside this rhetoric, discussing whether Iran should continue negotiations with the United States on a new nuclear deal. To the moderate newspaper, Arman-e Melli, talks with the US would be 'a sign of strength'; even the conservative paper, Jomhouri-e Eslami, has urged that talks with the US should be maintained. However, whether any proposed talks or deals by the Trump administration would play out is still debatable. What's different – and more concerning – about the current conflict from the one back in 1962 is that neither the US nor the Soviet Union were committed to eliminating the other nation. Since the early 1990s, Iran's religious and military leaders have fomented a visceral, irrational hatred even for the idea of Israel. Israel's foundation in 1948 was controversial – but so have plenty of other nations too. Israel is recognised by the UN in just the same way as Iran. It's a tragedy for the Iranian people that they are now paying a high price for this mad conceit of their supreme leader that denies the right of a fellow member of the UN to exist. Israel will be able to delay Iran's nuclear weapons programme, but military action alone will not wipe out the accumulated knowledge and skills of Iran's nuclear scientists. The only way to achieve that would be by a new nuclear deal, with intrusive inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The great irony is that it was what the previous nuclear deal – the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – achieved. It was Benjamin Netanyahu who reportedly persuaded Donald Trump in 2018 to pull out of the agreement, and the Iranian hardliners (always opposed to a deal) got to work on enriching uranium to levels needed for a nuclear bomb.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
British family stranded in Israel facing £6,000 bill to get home
Three generations of a British family are stranded in Israel, after their flight home was cancelled due to the escalating Iran -Israel conflict and closure of Israeli airspace. Lisa Baker, her daughter Bella, and her mother Phyllis Phillips are staying in a hotel with a safe room in Haifa. Despite registering with the Foreign Office, the family reports receiving little help and is exploring routes home involving land travel to Jordan and multiple connecting flights costing up to £6,000. Baker criticised the UK government's lack of evacuation plan, suggesting a boat service to Cyprus as a safer alternative, and questioned why the UK couldn't replicate Israel's efforts to fly nationals home. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the welfare of British nationals in Israel is the government's 'first priority', with support being offered in Jordan and Egypt and border crossing updates posted on the Foreign Office website.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Congress should be ashamed over helping Trump cutting foreign aid, activists say
The US Congress should be ashamed by its role in helping Donald Trump claw back billions of dollars in foreign aid funding already allocated to projects around the world, activists have said. The House of Representatives recently narrowly voted through a request to claw back $9.4 billion (£7bn) of funds – known as rescissions – with $8bn of that coming from foreign aid. It is the first step to making these cuts permanent. Programmes operating in 14 African countries have told The Independent they have been denied ring-fenced funding since Trump re-entered the White House in January and issued executive orders to slash aid spending, something HIV advocacy group, the Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) has claimed was 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Each year, US legislators vote through a budget setting out what the government must spend on different activities. By not spending money already allocated by Congress on foreign aid projects, Trump had been acted beyond the powers of the presidency, said Prof Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University. A federal judge ruled in Marc h that Trump had overstepped in withholding funds and that his government owed aid recipients money for work done in the first few weeks of his presidency, before contracts were cancelled. That case is currently being appealed by the government. 'The president has no power to unilaterally withhold funding already allocated by Congress,' he said. However, using a 'rare vote of Congress to rescind the funds it has already allocated' allows Trump to withhold the promised money legally. 'And to its shame, the House of Representatives has done just that,' Prof Gostin said. The package of cuts must now go to the Senate for a vote before becoming law. It has been suggested that he Senate will pick up the bill next month, but may try to tweak the contents. Thursday's vote was a, 'pretty clear example that [lawmakers] are happy to roll over and give the president what he wants,' said Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC which sued the government. 'They still acted illegally and immorally,' Mr Warren claimed. 'This process does not change that'. Until it was allowed to expire at the end of March, the US President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), which forms the backbone of the world's HIV response, set out in law that 10 per cent of its funds must be spent on orphans and vulnerable children. But since January, projects across Sub-Saharan Africa have not seen any of the promised funds, The Independent has learned, leaving vulnerable children without vital services to prevent HIV, access nutrition and report sexual violence. It's one example of the cuts which look set to become permanent, through claw backs of existing funds and a new budget proposed this month. Based on Trump's proposed budget for next year, the majority of specialised support for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) aside from basic medical treatment, are likely to be permanently excluded from receiving future US funds. These wider support services have been shown to protect children from contracting HIV and successfully link HIV-positive children to treatment. Project Hope in Namibia, which linked children in rural communities with HIV treatment and prevention, is another programme to have its OVC funding under Pepfar withheld since January. Early data showed children with HIV enrolled in Project Hope Namibia's programme were more likely to have the levels of virus in their blood brought down to undetectable levels – 96 per cent in January compared with 85 per cent the previous September. Suppressing the virus means they won't get sick or be able to infect others. 'They don't understand those programmes are lifesaving,' Leila Nimatallah, vice president of US advocacy group First Focus on Children, said. More than half of children with untreated HIV will die before their second birthday. 'Illegal and immoral' A State Department official said Pepfar continued to support 'lifesaving HIV testing, care and treatment' including for orphans and vulnerable children, but that all other services are currently being reviewed. But that's not how people working on the ground see things playing out. 'We will expect children to be dying who are not supposed to be dying,' said Desmond Otieno, project coordinator at HIV service the Integrated Development Facility in Kenya. The US has withheld money previously promised to IDF Kenya for services including medication counselling and psychological support since Trump took office, and the facility has already recorded deaths of children who were no longer able to access medication. 'That is the most outrageous [thing]' Mr Otieno said. The State Department spokesperson added that all foreign assistance programmes 'should be reduced over time' as they achieve their mission and move countries 'toward self-reliance". Project Hope in Namibia says its plan to make sure its services could be maintained by the local government by 2028 had been scuppered by the programmes abrupt ending, however. The process of transferring responsibility over including training up local staff will now be a lot harder, achieving exactly the opposite of this goal. Ms Nimatallah said she was calling on the Senate to 'reject this cruel rescissions package'. 'By passing this bill, Congress is taking back funding that it had already appropriated for the prevention of suffering and death of children under five from dirty water, infectious disease, and malnutrition,' she said, as well as funds 'set aside to protect Aids orphans from hunger and sex trafficking. 'The long and short of it is that the United States has turned its back on these children that it has promised to care for'.
