Israeli strike on Iranian prison killed more than 70, says Iran state-affiliated media
Israel's attack on Evin Prison in the Iranian capital of Tehran on Monday killed 71 people, according to Mizan, the news outlet of the Iranian judiciary.
'The martyrs include prison administrative staff, conscripted soldiers, inmates, family members of prisoners who were at the prison for visits or legal follow-ups, and neighbors living near the prison,' judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said in remarks published on Sunday.
The state-affiliated news agency Fars reported that 'much damage' had been recorded in the surrounding area.
The Israeli military attacked the entrance of Iran's notorious Evin Prison on Monday, according to Israel's defense minister and Iranian state news.
Security forces at the Evin detention center are known for their long record of human rights abuses, according to regime critics. Political activists, journalists and musicians are among those who have been incarcerated at the facility.
It is unclear why Israel targeted the facility. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed in a statement that Evin had been targeted, alongside several other sites, including the flagship building of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij headquarters (a paramilitary wing of the IRGC), without providing any further details.
France's foreign minister condemned the strike on the prison, which was housing two French nationals.
'The strike aimed at Evin Prison in Tehran put in danger two of our nationals, Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris, hostages for the past three years. It's unacceptable,' Jean-Noël Barrot said in a post on X following the attack.
The couple were on holiday in Iran in May 2022 when they were stopped by authorities and arrested on suspicion of espionage. In October that year, Iranian state television broadcast a forced confession from the pair, during which Kohler said she was an agent working for France's intelligence services, the DGES.
A ceasefire between Iran and Israel was announced late on Monday, after 12 days of back and forth strikes that started when Israel attacked Iran earlier this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Iranian Threat To World Oil Remains
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. P (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images After the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, there was arguably a security (or insecurity) premium on oil of about $10 per barrel. There were numerous scenarios of how threats to oil supplies might develop, ranging from drone attacks on oil shipping in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to an Israeli or American attack on Iran's oil export terminal, with a massive Iranian attack on Saudi oil fields being the worst-case scenario. Instead, the best-case scenario developed: an Iranian attack on a U.S. base in Qatar, done in a manner to minimize casualties, which suggested they wanted to de-escalate. But will this prove to be a one-and-done? Israel was slow to accept a cease-fire but now seems satisfied that Iran's nuclear program has been badly damaged and President Trump has declared Iranian nuclear facilities to be 'obliterated.' While there are dissenting voices, both countries appear satisfied and unlikely to take further military operations—for now. But just as Western intelligence has been less than unanimous about the military operation's efficacy, so statements from Iranian leaders have been contradictory. Any given comment could be self-serving: declare the operation a success to deter further attacks or declare it a failure to appease a domestic audience. But certainty is not advanced by their remarks. With asymmetric conflicts, it is always good to recall the Bluto Blutarsky rule from the movie Animal House : It ain't over until we say it's over. Given the significant presence of militants in the Iranian regime, it is premature to say they will not pursue further action. There are two particular paths that threaten severe consequences for the oil market and the global economy. First, the government (or some bodies therein) could pursue asymmetric warfare. Instead of publicly launching missiles, cyberattacks, sabotage, terrorism and/or assassinations could be attempted in the hope that they would be sufficiently deniable that the U.S. and/or Israel would not respond. Yet leaders of those two nations seem unlikely to refuse to retaliate because of incomplete evidence. Not only that, but there might be other actors like Al Qaeda that want to see Iran punished and so undertake covert actions hoping that Iran will be blamed. Which would put us back in the pre-bombing situation, with concerns that military escalation would include attacks on oil shipping or facilities. It would be nice to think that Netanyahu would restrain from attacking Iranian oil facilities, given that it would damage his allies, but the Israeli leader is hardly known for restraint. The U.S. Navy, on the other hand, would probably be tasked with taking out Iranian military targets and maybe even its leadership rather than the oil infrastructure. As discussed ad nauseum Iran could disrupt shipping in the Arabian/Persian Gulf, but only partly and only for a brief period. Swarms of drones and missiles could do enough damage to enough tankers to discourage many companies from risking their ships. The effects would resemble the supply chain problems caused by the pandemic: volatile quantities and uncertainty could trigger hoarding and would raise prices above $100 if the attacks are fairly successful. But there is another response that Iran might take. A number of analysts have pointed out that the country probably regrets not building and testing a nuclear weapon, that is, following the path of N. Korea instead of Libya's Gaddafi. Nuclear weapons are considered a deterrent and for vulnerable countries like Iran have a lot of appeal. Whether Iran is weeks, months or years away from being able to test a weapon after the damage inflicted on its program is not the operative question. The overarching issue concerns the response to such a test by the U.S. and Israel. Best case scenario would be if the test made Iran fell secure enough to rejoin the community of nations as a peaceful player, instead of being a revolutionary actor. They might very well do that, but it is hardly likely that either President Trump or Prime Minister Netanyahu would assume such to be the case, regardless of promises from the Iranian regime. The implication is that further military action would be undertaken, at the very least a new campaign of bombing and/or assassination. In this case, the potential for oil shipping and/or facilities to be attacked by one or both sides is revived, by one or both sides of the conflict. During the Iran-Iraq War, one editorial cartoonist portrayed the two antagonists astride an oil barrel, each stabbing his end and shouting, 'Take that!' The U.S. especially seems unlikely to want to use the 'oil weapon' against Iran: it would deny them revenue but simultaneously hurt the global economy. Still, the President might see that as a fifth-dimension chess move that would pay off in the long run. On the other hand, shutting down Iran's oil exports, now about 1.5 million barrels per day, could be offset by either increased Saudi production and/or releases from strategic inventories. For their part, the Saudis might prefer not to antagonize the Iranian regime given the recent rapprochement between the two or out a desire to avoid antagonizing a nuclear-armed neighbor. Strategic stocks in IEA countries could easily offset the loss of Iranian exports for many months, but consumer governments have a long history of withholding supplies during a crisis, fearing a worsening of the shortage or being unconcerned about higher prices. Energy security analysts have long considered an Iranian attack on the giant Saudi oil processing at Abqaiq to be the biggest threat, but the relative failure of the 2019 missile and drone attack on that facility has allayed those fears. Yet since then, Iranian capabilities have advanced, suggesting it should be newly considered as a threat. Certainly, if the regime believes its existence to be at issue, an extreme action cannot be ruled out. Paul Erdman's famous book Crash of '79 posited a nuclear attack on the Saudi oil fields by the Shah of Iran and a successful test of a nuclear device could kindle fears of just that doomsday scenario, particularly if the response to the test is a massive military attack with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Even if such doesn't occur, as long as Iran remains in something close to a state of war with Israel and the U.S., even a slight possibility that it would happen will impose a security premium on oil. Many are hoping that Iran's weakness will continue to encourage them to moderate their behavior, rein in their proxies and give up their nuclear weapon ambitions. Unfortunately, the history of foreign policy and military mistakes shows the folly of assuming one's opponents will behave as desired. Without a major change in the Iranian regime, there remains a significant potential for future threats to oil supplies from the various parties involved. And should the Iranian regime appear threatened, we could see a repeat of Saddam Hussein's destruction of oil fields in Kuwait (successful) and Iraq (unsuccessful). At any rate, complacency about energy security would appear to be shortsighted.
Fox News
38 minutes ago
- Fox News
Americans at July 4th celebrations warned of lone wolf terrorist threat
Local and federal authorities across the country are likely preparing for potential threats during Fourth of July celebrations next weekend amid tensions between the United States and the Middle East, according to a former U.S. Secret Service agent. Tensions escalated on June 22, when the U.S. Military bombed three key nuclear sites in Iran, according to Trump administration officials. "Due to the Iran conflict, the Department of Homeland Security has a National Threat Advisory System, and as of June 22, we are at a heightened threat environment," Michael Verden, founder and CEO of security firm The Lake Forest Group, told Fox News Digital. "That level will stay in place until September 22, and it could be extended based on the conflict in Iran." Verden, a former USSS agent and law enforcement officer, added that certain 4th of July activities and travel will see increased security and precautionary measures "because of this heightened threat environment." DHS said in a June 22 bulletin that "Iran also has a long-standing commitment to target US Government officials it views as responsible for the death of an Iranian military commander killed in January 2020." "The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland," DHS said. "Multiple recent Homeland terrorist attacks have been motivated by anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment, and the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could contribute to US-based individuals plotting additional attacks." Verden recalled a mass shooting that took place on the Fourth of July in Highland Park, Illinois, in 2022 that left seven people killed, including an 8-year-old boy. While the shooter's motive has not been described as an act of terrorism, Verden said that shooting three years ago brought more attention to the possibility of bad actors targeting "open-air events." In more urban settings, bad actors could also target subterranean spaces, such as subways or threats "from the water," he said. Public and private events will need to coordinate with local law enforcement for the holiday, according to Verden. Federal intelligence officials, meanwhile, will try to proactively identify and stop any emerging threats "associated with the homeland, and a 4th of July event is definitely associated with the homeland," Verden said. "I do believe that federal agencies will have more of an emphasis on identifying some type of emerging threat." The former USSS agent also said law enforcement will put a heavy emphasis on "access control," which includes everything from verifying credentials at admission for an event, checking bags, checking parked vehicles for explosives, looking out for suspicious activity and so on. "If there was some type of suspicious activity, do you have tactical units to respond to … a group of people that seems suspicious, or other assets such as explosives? They call it explosives ordinance disposal, which is EOD. So, if someone found a backpack that was unattended, do you have canine assets, or do you have EOD teams to respond to that?" Verden explained. Law enforcement will also be looking to cover high vantage points. Verden noted that the Highland Park shooter and the gunman who shot at then-candidate Donald Trump at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year were both positioned on rooftops. Verden said Fourth of July event attendees should familiarize themselves with venue layouts, and read website descriptions of events before attending. Revelers should also have a plan in the event of an emergency situation, such as coming up with a meeting location, especially if cell services crashes and there is no way to get in contact with loved ones. Law enforcement officials should take a "three-step approach" in the event of an emergency, according to Verden. First, assess the event space and come up with a security plan; have a pre-determined incident commander in the case of an emergency; and adequately train first-responders and other officials prior to an event. "There's always a little bit of a heightened risk level when it comes to these patriotic [events]. … This is when the Declaration of Independence was ratified on this date. So, there's always that concern of our adversaries. This would be an opportune time for them to do some type of an attack," he said. A recent assessment released last week by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) found that Israel's Operation Rising Lion, followed by U.S. bunker-busting strikes, "effectively destroyed Iran's centrifuge enrichment program." But authors David Albright and Spencer Faragasso cautioned that "residuals such as stocks of 60%, 20%, and 3-5% enriched uranium and centrifuges manufactured but not yet installed ... pose a threat as they can be used in the future to produce weapon-grade uranium." According to the ISIS report, "extensive damage" was confirmed at nearly all major Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, including the destruction of uranium metal conversion plants, fuel fabrication centers, and the IR-40 Arak heavy water reactor. The report noted that the Israeli and U.S. strikes "rendered the Fordow site inoperable," citing high-resolution satellite imagery of deep bunker penetrations. The bunker strikes have prompted conversations about Iranian retaliation against the United States.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
The cost of Israel's war with Iran
Zvi Eckstein, head of the Aaron Economic Policy Institute at Reichman University and former deputy governor of the Bank of Israel, speaks to CNBC about the cost of the Israel-Iran war.
