What happens next after US strikes on Iran? Dominic Waghorn and Stuart Ramsay answer your questions
After the US strikes on Iran, what is likely to happen next? And how could the Iranian response affect the UK? Our experts, international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn and chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, are here to answer your questions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Americans worry conflict with Iran could escalate, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - Americans are anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran and worry the violence could escalate after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. Some 79% of Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early Monday before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. Some 84% said they worried in general about the growing conflict. The poll, which surveyed 1,139 U.S. adults nationwide, underscored deep divisions in America over what Washington should do next and highlighted the political risks faced by Trump, whose presidential approval rating fell to 41%, the lowest level of his current term in office that began in January. The poll had a 3 percentage point margin of error. The U.S. bombing took place just two days ago and the public's view of the conflict could evolve in the days and weeks ahead. Only 32% of respondents said they supported continued U.S. airstrikes, compared to 49% who said they were opposed. However, within Trump's Republican Party, 62% backed further strikes and 22% were opposed. Republicans were more deeply divided when asked if they supported an immediate end to U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran, with 42% saying Washington should end its involvement now and 40% opposed to the idea. Significant majorities of Democrats were opposed to bombing Iran further and in favor of ending the conflict immediately. Trump ordered the U.S. military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday, a dramatic and risky shift in foreign policy following repeated pledges by Trump to avoid military interventions in major foreign wars. The president's overall approval rating, down 1 percentage point from 42% earlier in the month, has largely held steady in recent months, but is below the 47% reading in a Reuters/Ipsos poll just after he returned to the White House.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watch: Eyewitness captures possible missiles in Qatar skies on video
Eyewitness footage captured possible missiles in Qatar 's skies after the country's airspace was closed on Monday, 23 June. Iran launched missile strikes on a US base in the country after it vowed to retaliate against Washington for bombing its nuclear facilities on Sunday. Iran informed the US via two diplomatic channels hours ahead of the attacks in Qatar, a senior regional source told Reuters. It comes after American officials said Donald Trump was 'simply raising a question' after the US president entertained the idea of a regime change in Tehran following his claim he had taken a nuclear bomb 'right out of Iran's hands'.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rights groups warn Gaza Humanitarian Foundation it may be liable for international law violations
Fifteen international human rights organisations have called on the Israel- and US-backed Gaza food delivery group, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), and other private groups running humanitarian aid delivery in Gaza to cease their operations or face legal consequences. In a letter sent on Monday to GHF and the affiliated Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, the rights advocates warned that private contractors operating in Gaza in collaboration with the Israeli government risk 'aiding and abetting or otherwise being complicit in crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide'. They also noted that the contractors may be liable under US law and in other jurisdictions. The letter marks the latest warning against GHF, which has been mired in controversy since replacing most UN-run relief operations in Gaza. Major aid groups have boycotted it and accused it of violating the principles of neutrality and independence that are bedrocks of humanitarian work. GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The rollout of GHF operations over the last three weeks – after a two-month blockade on most aid entering Gaza that has pushed the territory's 2.1 million residents to the verge of famine – has been deadly. Scores of Palestinians seeking food aid have been killed by Israeli forces in chaotic scenes surrounding four privately run distribution hubs a UN official has described as 'death traps'. 'GHF's militarized model, coupled with its close collaboration with Israeli authorities, undermines the core humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence,' the letter sent Monday warned. 'We urge all parties involved – State actors, corporate entities, donors and individuals – to immediately suspend any action or support that facilitates the forcible displacement of civilians, contributes to starvation or other grave breaches of international law, or undermines the core principles of international humanitarian law.' Earlier this month, the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights had warned in a separate letter to Johnnie Moore, the evangelical leader and Trump adviser appointed to run the foundation after its former head resigned, that he and other GHF representatives may face civil litigation or criminal prosecution. 'Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in the weeks since GHF began its dehumanizing, militarized 'distribution hubs' in coordination with Israeli forces,' said Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at CCR, which also signed onto the most recent letter. 'If it continues its deadly, militarized operations, legal consequences will follow, whether in the United States or beyond.' Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, another signatory, said it is 'immoral and inhuman when those committing the genocide take responsibility to feed those whom they have starved'. 'They are using the GHF to humiliate, degrade and kill daily tens of starving people,' he added, referring to Israel. Last week, US senator Elizabeth Warren questioned the Trump administration's proposal to redirect $500m from USAID, which the administration has gutted, to GHF, which is registered in the US and Switzerland. 'The questions surrounding GHF – its funding sources and connection to the Trump Administration, its use of private contractors, its ability to serve and be seen as a neutral entity, its abandonment by its founders, and its basic competence in providing aid – must be answered before the State Department commits any funding to the organization,' Warren wrote. Human rights and humanitarian groups across the world have denounced the replacement of independent, long-established humanitarian relief operations by private, militarized groups and called for UN-operated relief efforts to be allowed in the strip again. 'This is not how you avert famine,' James Elder, Unicef's global spokesperson, wrote in the Guardian. 'There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We delivered aid at scale during the ceasefire, and we can do it again. We just need to be allowed to do our jobs.'
