Israel strikes Iran's notorious Evin Prison
Israel targeted Evin prison in Tehran on Monday, one of the most potent symbols of Iran's governing system, in what Israel called the most intense bombing yet of the Iranian capital, a day after the United States joined the war by blasting nuclear sites.
Iran repeated earlier threats to retaliate against the United States. But it had yet to so in a meaningful way more than 24 hours after US. bombers dropped 30,000 pound bunker-busters on its underground nuclear sites, while US President Donald Trump openly mused about overthrowing the Iranian government.
Oil prices barely budged on the first trading day after the U.S. joined the war, suggesting traders doubted Iran would follow through on threats to disrupt oil supplies from the Gulf.
The Mizan news outlet of Iran's judiciary confirmed that the prison had been hit. It said part of the building was damaged but the situation was under control.
A video posted by Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar on X showed an explosion at a building with a sign identifying it as an entrance to Evin prison in northern Tehran and the accompanying words: 'Viva la libertad!' - Spanish for 'Long live liberty.' Reuters could not immediately verify the video.
Loading
Evin has been the primary prison for housing political detainees and security prisoners, notably since Iran's 1979 revolution, and the site of executions that remain potent symbols for the opposition. It is where several high-profile foreign prisoners are also held.
Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, a Melbourne-based scholar of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies was held in solitary confinement at the prison following her arrest in 2018. Moore-Gilbert, who was sentenced to 10 years on trumped-up charges of espionage after attending a conference, returned to Australia following a prisoner swap in November 2020.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz made clear that Israel was no longer limiting its attacks to its initial stated targets such as Iran's nuclear programme and missiles, and would go after the Tehran government's ability to maintain power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
40 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
The 'counter-productive' Greta Thunberg product is about to expire after getting nowhere - as emissions are still rising
There's a difference between being brave and being performative. Greta Thunberg, once hailed as a pint-sized prophetess of climate doom, seems unable to grasp that distinction. Her recent attempt to sail into Gaza as part of the so-called 'Freedom Flotilla' - only to be redirected by the Israeli navy, crying 'we've been kidnapped!' - wasn't just farcical - it was a masterclass in moral cosplay. Thunberg, now 21 and apparently moonlighting as a Middle East conflict expert, embodies a broader problem: the narcissism of Western activism. These aren't efforts to change the world. They're acts of self-affirmation, like posting a black square on Instagram - but with more diesel flotilla she joined wasn't bringing meaningful aid. It was there to 'enforce' international law, or so the Thunberg brigade claims - quoting selectively from recent International Court of Justice rulings as if they were binding military orders. This wasn't humanitarianism. It was a cargo cult of global virtue-signalling, with Thunberg as its figurehead. And predictably, the Western commentariat went into meltdown. Owen Jones - never one to miss an opportunity for online hysteria- actually suggested Israel might murder Greta Thunberg. Yes, really. We've entered a realm where online outrage has looped back on itself and become indistinguishable from satire. But Thunberg's antics are part of a broader trend: the collapse of modern activism into what some critics have dubbed neotoddlerism - a worldview where impulsivity, emotionalism and moral absolutism are mistaken for virtue. It's political 'tantruming', fuelled by smartphones and retweets. If 'neotoddlers' had a clubhouse, Thunberg would be its is enabled by what's been called the Omnicause: a kind of ideological soup where every fashionable grievance blends into the next. One week it's climate change, the next it's Palestine, then it's trans rights or anti-capitalism or whatever else is trending. The specific issue doesn't matter. The performance performance is what it is. When Just Stop Oil blocked the M25 or hurled soup at Van Gogh paintings, they weren't building public support. They were feeding the beast of clickbait activism - and feeding their own egos in the process. Thunberg's Gaza voyage is just the same formula applied offshore. This shift towards omnidirectional outrage reflects a deeper cultural trend. The youthful rebellion that once expressed itself through music or fashion has now migrated to politics, especially online politics. That rebellious impulse, once harnessed by punk rockers and hippies, now manifests as TikTok lectures on settler colonialism by people too young to remember dial-up internet. But rebellion on its own rarely leads to real change. The Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed because it blocked train stations or used trending hashtags. It succeeded because it had focused leadership, realistic goals, and a strategy. Today's activists, by contrast, are mostly decentralised, addicted to social media, and allergic to compromise. They have no means to create, only to disrupt. And disrupt they do, often in spectacularly counterproductive ways. Pro-Palestine protestors chant for peace while glorifying Hamas. Environmental activists call for an end to fossil fuels while also attempting to halt nuclear and electric innovation. The irony is lost on them. Neotoddlers don't do also don't do strategy. 'Ceasefire now!' is a nice chant, but who enforces it? Hamas? 'Just Stop Oil!' sounds great until you realise it would plunge the West back into pre-industrial darkness. These movements have no viable endgame. Just feelings, slogans, and a need to be this performative activism often alienates the very people it claims to speak for. It's no coincidence that many of these protestors are affluent, highly educated, and, quite frankly, a bit bored. Philosopher Eric Hoffer noted in 1951 that mass movements thrive on boredom. When real problems are scarce, the privileged invent new ones. Enter Thunberg, stage left. Let's be honest: Thunberg was never a serious intellectual force. Her fame didn't come from original thought, but from emotional appeal - her plaintive 'how dare you?' speech, her youth, her autism, her uncanny resemblance to a real-life Pippi Longstocking. She was a media product: carefully packaged, widely distributed, and now, inevitably, close to the reality is, Thunberg is no longer young enough to be novel or old enough to be wise. She's ageing out of her niche. Her climate movement, once radical, is being absorbed and neutralised by the same institutions it claimed to oppose. She's addressed parliaments, the UN, even Davos - like the activist equivalent of signing a multi-album deal with HMV. And yet, global emissions are still her pivot to Palestine reflects this creeping irrelevance. But her new slogan of 'no climate justice on occupied land' is little more than a slogan. It's vapid. It's emotionally manipulative. And it reveals how little she understands the complexities of either issue. Gaza isn't a climate problem. And its overlords, Hamas, Qatar and Iran, are hardly green pioneers. The idea that climate justice can be achieved by shouting empty phrases at a crowd is absurd. Worse, it dilutes legitimate environmental activism by tying it to unsolvable geopolitical conflicts. It muddies the waters, both literally and metaphorically. So where does that leave Thunberg? Probably where she began: as a symbol. But what she symbolises now is less inspiring. Not youthful purity, but institutionalised angst. Not bravery, but attention-seeking. Not change, but performance. And frankly, that's a shame. Because there are real problems in the world. Real wars. And real injustice. But none of them will be solved by a flotilla of Westerners yelling into the wind, hoping someone somewhere will applaud their bravery online. In the end, activism that's more interested in being seen than being effective is just another form of narcissism. And no amount of chanting or crying will change that. Esther Krakue is a British commentator who has regularly appeared on Sky News Australia programs, as well as on TalkTV and GB News in the UK. She launched her career with Turning Point UK, with whom she hosted a show featuring guests including Douglas Murray and Peter Hitchens
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
One nation can stop Iran blockading key shipping route. It's not the US
In the wake of the US strikes on Iran, focus has shifted to how Tehran will respond. Its options range from the less likely – direct attacks on US bases – to exerting pressure on maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian parliament's reported vote to blockade the strait offers a possible clue. Can Iran realistically close this chokepoint, and what would that mean for Australia? Wedged between Iran and Oman, the Strait of Hormuz is the only maritime gateway to the oil-rich Persian Gulf, carrying about a quarter of the world's crude exports. Iran's control of the northern shore has long fuelled fears it could shut the strait in retaliation to an attack. The threat is hardly notional: Tehran has used shipping harassment for leverage before, including during the 1980s 'Tanker Wars' with Iraq. After Trump quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal in 2018 and launched its 'maximum-pressure' campaign, Tehran again turned to commercial shipping. In May 2019, four tankers were attacked with limpet mines in the Gulf of Oman, almost certainly by Iran. Two months later, Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) seized the UK-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz and briefly detained the Liberian-flagged Mesdar. Those incidents opened a two-year stretch of Iranian harassment of civilian and naval traffic in the world's busiest oil chokepoint. After Iran's 2019 attacks on commercial shipping, Washington set up the International Maritime Security Construct to protect shipping, with Australia among its founding members. The strait's security is critical to Australia's economy, which is why Canberra sent a warship and personnel, including me, to help keep it open. Long before Iran's April 2024 missile barrage on Israel, the two rivals were already skirmishing at sea. In March 2021, an Israeli-owned freighter was hit by what was almost certainly an Iranian missile in the Arabian Sea. A month later, limpet mines widely blamed on Israel crippled the Iranian-flagged MV Saviz in the Red Sea, a vessel believed to serve as an IRGC forward base. These incidents show how the proxy war spills into maritime space and how Tehran uses strikes on merchant shipping for strategic signalling. Iran views its grip on the Strait of Hormuz as its trump card and has repeatedly harassed and attacked commercial and military vessels transiting the strait to make a political point. It is therefore no surprise that the Iranian parliament has reportedly approved a motion to blockade the waterway. Whether Tehran can, or will, carry it out is another question. Naval blockades are back in vogue: Russia's bid to choke Ukraine's grain exports in the Black Sea, Houthi claims of blockading the Red Sea to Israel-linked ships, and fears that Beijing might apply a naval blockade to ring-fence Taiwan all show how coercion at sea is reshaping security debates. Naval blockades are lawful under the law of armed conflict, but only if they meet strict tests: they must be formally declared and notified, enforced impartially and effectively, and limited to stopping enemy commerce or contraband. Crucially, a blockade cannot starve civilian populations or seal off neutral ports.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
One nation can stop Iran blockading key shipping route. It's not the US
In the wake of the US strikes on Iran, focus has shifted to how Tehran will respond. Its options range from the less likely – direct attacks on US bases – to exerting pressure on maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian parliament's reported vote to blockade the strait offers a possible clue. Can Iran realistically close this chokepoint, and what would that mean for Australia? Wedged between Iran and Oman, the Strait of Hormuz is the only maritime gateway to the oil-rich Persian Gulf, carrying about a quarter of the world's crude exports. Iran's control of the northern shore has long fuelled fears it could shut the strait in retaliation to an attack. The threat is hardly notional: Tehran has used shipping harassment for leverage before, including during the 1980s 'Tanker Wars' with Iraq. After Trump quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal in 2018 and launched its 'maximum-pressure' campaign, Tehran again turned to commercial shipping. In May 2019, four tankers were attacked with limpet mines in the Gulf of Oman, almost certainly by Iran. Two months later, Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) seized the UK-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz and briefly detained the Liberian-flagged Mesdar. Those incidents opened a two-year stretch of Iranian harassment of civilian and naval traffic in the world's busiest oil chokepoint. After Iran's 2019 attacks on commercial shipping, Washington set up the International Maritime Security Construct to protect shipping, with Australia among its founding members. The strait's security is critical to Australia's economy, which is why Canberra sent a warship and personnel, including me, to help keep it open. Long before Iran's April 2024 missile barrage on Israel, the two rivals were already skirmishing at sea. In March 2021, an Israeli-owned freighter was hit by what was almost certainly an Iranian missile in the Arabian Sea. A month later, limpet mines widely blamed on Israel crippled the Iranian-flagged MV Saviz in the Red Sea, a vessel believed to serve as an IRGC forward base. These incidents show how the proxy war spills into maritime space and how Tehran uses strikes on merchant shipping for strategic signalling. Iran views its grip on the Strait of Hormuz as its trump card and has repeatedly harassed and attacked commercial and military vessels transiting the strait to make a political point. It is therefore no surprise that the Iranian parliament has reportedly approved a motion to blockade the waterway. Whether Tehran can, or will, carry it out is another question. Naval blockades are back in vogue: Russia's bid to choke Ukraine's grain exports in the Black Sea, Houthi claims of blockading the Red Sea to Israel-linked ships, and fears that Beijing might apply a naval blockade to ring-fence Taiwan all show how coercion at sea is reshaping security debates. Naval blockades are lawful under the law of armed conflict, but only if they meet strict tests: they must be formally declared and notified, enforced impartially and effectively, and limited to stopping enemy commerce or contraband. Crucially, a blockade cannot starve civilian populations or seal off neutral ports.
