'Nowhere to escape': Israel strike intensifies distress in notorious Iran jail
Israel targeted the prison in an air strike on Monday, before an American call for a ceasefire, destroying not just the front entrance but also inner parts of the complex, according to activists who had contact with prisoners, and also killing several people, according to the Iranian judiciary.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar hailed the strike by posting "long live freedom!" while former UK premier Boris Johnson said it was "great to see that Israel has blown the doors off Evin prison".
But rights groups accused Israel of causing only additional anguish to detainees who are already deeply distressed and at least some of whom have been relocated to other prisons.
The New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) said the strike caused severe damage to critical areas including the women's section, ward 8, believed to house political prisoners, the infirmary and the prosecutor's office.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, who was held in the prison until being allowed temporary leave for medical reasons last year, said that as a result of the strike the infirmary was destroyed and prisoners were under intensified security conditions or relocated.
"Families are filled with fear and anxiety," she said in a statement.
'Distressed prisoners'
The judiciary's Mizan Online website confirmed that prisoners had been transferred to other facilities within Tehran province but did not specify how many inmates were moved.
Judiciary spokesman Asghar Jahangir said multiple people were killed and wounded in the strike, "including administrative and judicial staff, visiting civilians, family members of inmates and the inmates themselves".
Mohammadi expressed concern that among those killed were family members of inmates who had visited the prosecutor's office at the prison -- located close to the entrance –- seeking information about their loved ones' cases.
The Norway-based Hengaw rights group said hours after the attack Evin prisoners were transferred by bus to other prisons in the region and the women inmates to Qarchak prison outside Tehran which has a dire reputation for its conditions.
Amnesty International said it was "extremely distressed" by the attack on the prison "where hundreds of prisoners, including political dissidents and human rights defenders" are held.
"Prison security forces must not use force or firearms against distressed prisoners," it said.
The CHRI published a letter signed by inmates -- whose names were withheld for their safety -- accusing the Evin authorities of "creating a highly repressive atmosphere" rather than helping prisoners during the strikes.
"We had nowhere to escape during the bombing, nor have we had any refuge from the organised violence that has crushed our lives and dignity for years," they said, adding several prisoners had been injured as they rushed downstairs in search of safety.
'Huge complex'
British-Iranian woman Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was held in Evin for several years, wrote in Britain's Guardian newspaper she vehemently opposed the bombing of the prison by Israel.
"So bringing down those gates might have seemed like a symbolic act for faraway media. But it did not feel like it made anyone safe inside," she said.
Built in 1972 under the reign of the former shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Evin has long been a looming presence, looking down on Tehran from its northern limits in the foothills of the Alborz mountains.
In October 2022, at the height of nationwide protests against the authorities, Evin was hit by a fire, with reports of gunshots, that left at least eight inmates dead. The circumstances of the blaze remain murky.
"It's a huge complex," said Taghi Rahmani, husband of Narges Mohammadi, now living in exile in France, who spent time in this prison between 1986 and 1994, and in 2010-2011, before fleeing Iran.
He pointed in particular to section 209 -- run by the intelligence ministry for political prisoners -- as a "prison within a prison".
Louis Arnaud, a Frenchman held for two years in Evin until his release last year, said he feared for his former cellmates. "In these very dark days, we don't know what could happen in this building."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fashion Network
43 minutes ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Fashion Network
an hour ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
White House orders US museum review to ensure they meet Trump's agenda
The White House is ordering a wide-ranging review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions ahead of the country's 250th birthday. The goal? Aligning the institution's content with Donald Trump's interpretation of American history. In a letter sent Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organization to take as part of the announced review. The probe will look at all public-facing content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to 'assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter added. This review ordered by the White House directs the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions." The Smithsonian said it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history." 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. The Smithsonian probe will initially focus on eight museums: the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. The review, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is the latest attempt by Trump to bring the country's cultural institutions in line with his vision. In February, Trump removed the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees and replaced them with his supporters. He even named himself chairman and vowed to end events featuring performers in drag, indicating he would take on a larger role in dictating the institution's programming schedule. This drew criticism from some artists, including the producers of Broadway hit musical Hamilton, who pulled out of staging the show in 2026, citing Trump's aggressive takeover of the institution's leadership. Other artists who cancelled events include actor Issa Rae, singer Rhiannon Giddens and author Louise Penny. In March, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which accused the Smithsonian of coming under the influence of a 'divisive, race-centered ideology' and called upon it to 'remove improper ideology' from the institution's museums. As for the Smithsonian, it has repeatedly denied allegations that it has changed or removed exhibit details in response to pressure from the Trump administration. As we reported earlier this month, the institution removed references to Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit on the American presidency. A spokesman for the museum said the references, which were added in 2021, were intended to be a temporary measure and said a future exhibit would include details on all presidential impeachments. The institution said there had been no nudge from the White House, with its statement reading: 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit.' The timing of this now raises even more eyebrows, as Trump is clearly doubling down on his campaign to 'restore truth' to what he sees as 'anti-American' cultural spaces.
