Life back to normal in Doha after Iran fires missiles at Al Udeid base
A ceasefire in the so-called "12-day war" between Iran and Israel was announced by the White House early on Tuesday morning.
Just after 0700CET, US President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire between the two countries had taken effect, saying "Please do not violate it!" in a post on Truth Social.
Around an hour later, the Israeli government confirmed it had agreed to the ceasefire proposal with Iran indicating it would stop attacks if Israel did the same.
Two hours after Israel agreed to the truce, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said it had identified missiles launched from Iran.
That prompted Defence Minister Israel Katz to instruct the IDF to continue attacking Tehran, slamming the "complete violation" of the truce's terms.
Iran denied it had fired any missiles after the ceasefire came into effect with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) later saying it had struck "military and logistical centres" in Israel "in the final moments before the ceasefire was imposed on the enemy."
After the apparent shaky start to the ceasefire, Trump later posted on Truth Social saying, "Both Israel and Iran wanted to stop the War, equally! It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!"
Meanwhile, in Doha it's business as usual, after Iran launched a salvo of missiles at the US air base Al Udeid in Qatar on Monday, but no rockets hit their target.
It later emerged that Iran had informed both the US and Qatar of the imminent strike, meaning Qatari air defences were able to shoot down the missiles.
Most people in Doha are returning to work, but with a sense of caution still in the air. The airspace has reopened and flights to and from Qatar have resumed.
After that barrage, citizens and residents of the Gulf state were largely united behind the Qatari government, backing its calls for a return to diplomacy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
36 minutes ago
- Euronews
Defence up to 5% GDP, Ukraine, Russia: Key takeaways from NATO summit
NATO leaders on Wednesday confirmed their commitment to more than double defence spending by 2035 banding words like "crucial", "momentous" and "quantum leap", but the summit also exposed rifts over how the US and Europe perceive Ukraine and Russia. Allies committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence spending to buy military hardware and maintain troops and another 1.5% on defence-related investments. This includes dual-purpose investments that would boost military mobility, cybersecurity, military and civilian cooperation and resilience on critical infrastructure. US President Donald Trump, who had long called for a 5% target, crowed victory, lauding how "over a trillion (US dollars) a year" will now be spent on defence from Europe and Canada. The declaration that emerged from the summit is much shorter than the statements that have come out of previous meetings and paints the picture of a united alliance but not all is as it seems. Here's what you need to know. Different interpretations of 5% "Allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations, in accordance with Article 3 of the Washington Treaty," the NATO declaration says. But some allies seem to have a different interpretation. Spain and Slovakia for instance, have indicated they don't plan to raise their national defence budget for now, arguing they can reach their national capability targets by spending less. Prime Minister Sánchez stressed to reporters after the summit that Spain is "firmly committed to our capacity objectives" and "a serious country that fulfills its commitments". Rutte more or less cast doubts on them being able to do so, telling reporters at the end of the summit that the targets were calculated based on the defence planning process during which the capability targets for each country, and estimates of what it would cost to reach them, were set. Bart De Wever, Belgium's prime minister, also expressed his scepticism, telling reporters on Wednesday morning before the summit that "if we can do it (reach the capability targets with less than 3.5% of GDP), we will try to do it as well." "But NATO is not foolish. If they say it's going to be 3.5% to get it done, it's probably true," he added. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said that the targets "should be binding and they should be for all 32 members of the alliance". For Trump, Spain's stance is "terrible", adding: "I don't know what the problem is." He said that he is "going to make them pay twice as much" in other ways. Allies have agreed to review progress on their spending trajectory in 2029 and possibly set new capability targets depending on the geopolitical situation. Trump's commitment to Article 5 Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty is the collective defence clause which states that an attack on one ally is an attack against them all. Trump has since his reelection castigated European allies for not spending enough on their own defence and suggested the US could choose not to assist an ally under attack if their spending is low. When asked, as he was flying to the Hague for the summit, whether he remained committed, Trump told reporters: "It depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article 5." "But I'm committed to being their friends (...) and I'm committed to helping them". In their summit declaration, all 32 allies, including the US, "reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all." Rutte and most European leaders have in public said they have no doubt about Washington's commitment to European security with the secretary-general saying the US "reaffirmed that today in no uncertain terms". Ukraine watered down For Rutte, one of the "resounding" messages that emerged from the summit was that of the alliance's "continued support" for Ukraine. "Our aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight today so that it can enjoy a lasting peace in the future," he said, also reiterating that the war-torn country is on "an "irreversible path to NATO". This formula was introduced in the declaration that came out of the 2024 summit in Washington, in which the word Ukraine appeared roughly 60 times. Allies also stated then that a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine "is vital for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area", and "directly contributes to Euro-Atlantic security". However, In this year's declaration, the word Ukraine is mentioned just twice: "Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies' defence spending." Sources from NATO allied countries told Euronews they were confident of strong language linking Ukrainian security to NATO security. This was an area of some discussion in recent weeks as to the strength and relevance of Ukraine in the overall final statement. In the weeks and months leading up to the summit there was even some talk as to whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be invited to the leaders' dinner hosted by Dutch King and Queen. Not inviting Zelenskyy would have been "a PR disaster", another source told Euronews. Yet allies – aside from the US - are at pains to explain that the journey towards Ukraine's membership of NATO has not ended abruptly, but only slowed down. "There will be a path to NATO membership for Ukraine, but of course once more when conditions allow and when allies agree," Latvian Defence minister Andris Sprūds said. "At the moment, allies don't agree on that specific decision right now, but I am sure and I'm confident that sooner or later this decision will be taken with regard to NATO and also with regard to European Union," he told Euronews at the Hague. Sprūds pointed to the deliberately narrow focus on spending at the summit as one reason for the pivot away from Ukraine. "This is about spending, it is about NATO capabilities.. so by this indirectly or directly we can interpret it, it also underlines the importance of Ukraine," he said. Zelenskyy did have a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the summit with Trump later describing him as "very nice" and saying he "couldn't have been nicer". The two men had a highly contentious meeting in the Oval Office in February. "He'd like to see it (the war) ended," Trump also said. "I'm going to speak to Vladimir Putin, see if we can get it ended." Russia gets just one mention US intervention is also behind how brief the mention of Russia is in the declaration, sources have told Euronews. The document states that allies are "united in the face of profound security threats and challenges, in particular the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security". Asked about his contacts with Putin, Trump told reporters that "he'd like to settle" his war in Ukraine but and that "it's possible" he could have designs on other European territories. "I consider him a person that I think has been misguided," Trump added. Non-US sources close to the negotiations had previously said on conditions of anonymity that they were not displeased with the language on Russia and the fact it is the only other country mentioned. This, they said, showed NATO is returning to its so-called "core business". The US had in previous years insisted that the Indo-Pacific and China be mentioned.
France 24
36 minutes ago
- France 24
Mark Rutte's address at NATO summit
06:08 25/06/2025 French president Emmanuel Macron speaks at the NATO summit 25/06/2025 NATO leaders agreement is a 'huge victory' for Donald Trump 25/06/2025 NATO leaders agree on spending hike, vow to defend each other 25/06/2025 Iran nuclear: US Intelligence report challenges Trump's claims 25/06/2025 Gaza health authorities report over 40 death in aid queue 25/06/2025 France: Loire castles at risk due to climate change 25/06/2025 Russian strikes kill at least 26, injure over 200 in Dnipro Europe 25/06/2025 Heatwave blankets US East Coast 25/06/2025 In Israel, the hope for a lasting truce
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
Robert Malley: 'The adversaries of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be wrong to celebrate too much'
The strikes ordered by President Donald Trump against Iranian nuclear facilities have raised many questions. Iran's retaliation has proven to be, essentially, symbolic – an attack announced in advance, against a US military base that had already been evacuated. Will the regime one day choose to go further, mobilizing what remains of its allies to avenge the affront? Will it withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Will it secretly pursue the path to an atomic bomb, using enriched uranium it may have managed to hide in time? Trump claims to want peace: Will he now distinguish it from the unconditional surrender he demanded not long ago? The US president's mood shifts constantly: In less than two weeks, he switched from diplomacy to supporting the Israeli operations, then back to diplomacy, direct strikes, a nod to regime change, and, in the end, wishing for eternal peace. What new whim will he give in to tomorrow? These are important questions, but they are secondary concerns, as any answer is, by definition, temporary. The deeper consequences of the wars that have bloodied the Middle East, however, are already known to us. They will haunt us for a long time to come. Western hypocrisy To begin: After the carnage in Gaza, and though the death tolls are not comparable, the Israeli-American offensive against Iran has further diminished what little credibility international law and the rules that govern war still have. Law and legitimacy are now obsolete and archaic concepts. So be it. Yet, in that case, let's stop invoking them when it suits us – such as against Russia – if we are going to ignore them when they prove inconvenient. And we should prepare to live in a world where war is waged because it can be, because the means to do so are there, and because nothing stops it from happening.
