Israel strikes Iranian state TV studio during live broadcast
An Israeli airstrike hit the headquarters of Iranian state television in Tehran on Monday in the middle of a live broadcast, filling the studio with dust and debris as the anchor hurried out of the frame. The feed was then cut off, and then resumed after a few minutes.
Hassan Abedini, the deputy director of Iran's state broadcaster, said an unspecified number of employers were injured, according to the New York Times. Footage from outside the building showed the building on fire and billowing smoke.
The Israeli military claimed that the building was being used to conceal military infrastructure, a claim that The Washington Post and other outlets said they could not independently verify.
'The Iranian regime's propaganda and incitement broadcasting authority was attacked by the IDF after a widespread evacuation of residents in the area,' said Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz. 'We will defeat the Iranian dictator everywhere.'
Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian government, called the strike 'a wicked act of war crime.'
The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was 'appalled' by the strike.
'Israel's killing, with impunity, of almost 200 journalists in Gaza has emboldened it to target media elsewhere in the region. This bloodshed must end now,' a spokesperson for the group's Middle East and North African branch said in a release.
The strike comes after the Israeli military said it had control of the airspace over Tehran and western Iran.
Iran's health ministry says more than 220 people have been killed in four days of Israeli strikes, while Israel has reported 24 deaths. Israel's opening salvo killed about 20 military commanders and at least 9 nuclear scientists, as well as striking the country's main nuclear sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel's air strength is giving it a free hand over Iran
Israel's initial attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, alongside its assassination of top military officials and nuclear scientists, on June 13 has been followed by days of escalating strikes. Iran threatened 'severe punishment' and quickly launched what were, in relative terms, smaller-scale missile attacks against Israeli territory. Israel's military then expanded its assault on Iran, with the Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, saying 'Tehran will burn' if Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 'continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front'. Israel hit dozens of targets in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on June 15, and has since issued evacuation orders for significant areas of the city. The exchange of attacks has put the varying military and defensive capabilities of Israel and Iran on stark display. In particular, it appears that Israel has been able to exercise a high degree of air superiority over Iran. Israel was able to use more than 200 manned aircraft in its initial attack, with its air force reportedly suffering zero casualties. Within 48 hours of starting the conflict, Israel said it had gained control of the skies above Tehran. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This superiority has largely been gained through concerted efforts over the past year to destroy or degrade Iran's air defence systems. In October 2024, for example, Israeli strikes targeted air defences protecting Iranian oil and gas facilities as well as those defending sites linked to Tehran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile production. With a weakened air defence system, the Iranian military has been less able to prevent missile attacks and Israeli aircraft from entering its air space. This has given the Israeli military greater freedom of action in terms of the targets it chooses to attack – and greater freedom of choice when planning operations. Israeli aircraft have been dropping bombs from within Iran, instead of relying on long-range missiles. Iran, on the other hand, has been restricted to using its arsenal of missiles to strike Israel from distance. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made reference to the strategic importance of this aerial superiority on June 16. While confirming evacuation orders for the Iranian capital, he said: 'The Israeli air force controls the skies over Tehran. This changes the entire campaign.' Netanyahu later did not rule out killing Khamenei, saying it would 'end the conflict'. Katz repeated the threat the following day, warning Khamenei of a 'fate similar to Saddam Hussein'. Iran has been far less effective than Israel in its response – which is no great surprise. Israel says it has destroyed 'one-third' of the surface-to-surface missile launchers possessed by Iran. And the majority of the missiles and drones that have been fired by Iran into Israeli territory have been intercepted before striking their targets. But the strength of Israel's so-called iron dome air defence system has, somewhat counter-intuitively, also offered Iran some advantages. In order to maintain the Iranian regime's own internal security and stability, as well as its wider political aims of being a regional power, Tehran had to respond with a certain level of force. However, Iran is also fully aware of the protection the iron dome provides to the Israeli population. The Iranian government will still be able to point to the few missiles and drones that have reached their target, and the destruction they have caused, as evidence that it is able to project its power beyond its own borders and respond in the face of aggressive Israeli action. It is able to do so in the knowledge that the level of destruction and deaths of Israeli civilians, which so far stands at around 24 people, will be limited to such a degree that any further escalation by Israel will be seen as unjustified by the wider international community. However, as the destruction and death toll rises, it will become harder for either government to follow this path of logic. Iran has already criticised the Israeli military's claim that it has conducted strikes in a precise manner and only against military targets, reporting that over 200 civilians have been killed in the strikes. It is here where mistakes and missteps could see events spiral out of control. This may lead to a wider and larger-scale conflict that neither side wants but is unable to prevent occurring. Iran, for its part, is reportedly signalling that it is seeking an end to hostilities and the resumption of talks over its nuclear programme. If the conflict does escalate, Israel will probably target Iranian military production facilities. The Israeli military has already issued a warning on social media, telling the Iranian people to stay away from all weapons manufacturing facilities. Other targets may include nuclear installations – though at least one, the heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site in central Iran, will not be targeted. Fordow is hidden in a mountain, with centrifuges located possibly as deep as 80 metres underground. Only the US military has the hardware capable of reaching this facility, so attacking the site would require US intervention. This is something the current Washington administration has proved reluctant to do, so far. But any escalation could have ramifications beyond the Middle East. Iran has supplied Shahed-type drones to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine, with them becoming a key part of Russia's military strategy. However, Russia is now largely producing its own supplies of Shahed drones internally. A much more likely effect is the prolonging of the war in Ukraine as international attention shifts to de-escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. The international community has focused on trying to prevent further attacks, with the US president, Donald Trump, advocating for talks rather than more strikes. On June 15, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social: 'Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make.' Whether Israel and Iran take heed of his request will become clear over the coming days and weeks. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Matthew Powell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Highs And Lows Possible For Women Governors In The Next Two Years
ELIZABETH, NJ - MAY 24 - Democratic candidate for Governor Rep. Mikie Sherrill attends a Latinos for ... More Mikie event at the Rancho Mateo restaurant. (Aristide Economopoulos For The Washington Post via Getty Images) Three of four gubernatorial nominees in 2025 are women. Current U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill secured the Democratic nomination for New Jersey Governor last week and former U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger (D) and current Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears (R) cleared their fields ahead of today's Virginia state primary contests. If Sherrill is successful in November, the number of women governors could match the record high of 14, set for the first time for a brief period in January 2025. But maintaining that level of representation—still far short of parity with men—might prove difficult as half of the current women governors will be leaving office by 2027. Women's political representation is especially stark at the gubernatorial level. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 51 women have served as governors in 32 states; 18 states have never been led by a woman. And women's gubernatorial representation has never exceeded 28%. The number of women governors serving simultaneously jumped from nine to 12 as a result of the 2022 elections, when the number of women candidates and nominees for governor reached record highs. In 2024, when just 11 states held gubernatorial elections, former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was the only woman winner. The 2025 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia could double that number and mark multiple milestones. Apart from matching a record number of women governors nationwide, the 2025 contests will yield the first woman governor of Virginia. Earle-Sears could also become the nation's first Black women governor. In 2011, Susana Martinez (R-NM) became the first Latina and Nikki Haley (R-SC) became the first South Asian woman governor in the U.S. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) became the first Latina Democrat and just the third woman of color to serve as governor in 2019. To date, no Black, Native, or Middle Eastern/North African woman has held gubernatorial office. Women's gubernatorial representation matters beyond the numbers. The presence of women in states' top executive office has both symbolic and substantive implications. Scholars Christina Ladam, Jeffrey Hardin, and Jason Windett find, for example, that the presence of high-profile women officeholders—including women governors—positively affects the numbers of women running for the legislature in that state. Other researchers have found that women governors, more than their male counterparts, are associated with drops in CO2 emissions, greater attention to social welfare policies, and swifter and more aggressive reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. The broader literature on women officeholders' impact demonstrates how the distinct and diverse lived experiences of women contribute to the difference they can make when in positions of political power. Women governors are also especially poised to be considered as presidential contenders. Of the 45 men who have served as president, 17 previously served as state governors. More than 20 U.S. governors (former and current) were major-party candidates in the past three presidential elections. Among them is just one woman—former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who sought the 2024 Republican nomination. Increasing the number of women state executives creates a fuller pathway to a woman president. Serving as a state's top executive provides potential women presidential contenders with executive skills and experience, statewide and national recognition, and substantive leadership records that can match voter expectations for the country's commander in chief. Seeing these benefits of women's gubernatorial representation is more difficult when the number of women governors drops, which is possible as a result of election 2026. Five of 12 current women governors are term-limited in 2026, and another—Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R)—has already announced that she will not seek re-election. The remaining women governors currently serving are up for re-election in what is expected to be another competitive election year. Only the women (or woman) who win in 2025 are assured their offices in 2027. Already, multiple non-incumbent women have announced their 2026 bids for governor, supplying a pool of candidates that could curb a possible loss in women's gubernatorial representation in 2027. This includes women running in states where incumbent women governors are departing. An early poll finds Secretary of State Joceyln Benson is favored in the 2026 Democratic gubernatorial primary in Michigan, where current Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) is ineligible to run for re-election. Two prominent women officeholders—Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and former Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives Hannah Pingree—have already declared candidacy in Maine's Democratic primary to replace incumbent, and term-limited, Governor Janet Mills (D). Last week, state Senator Cindy Holscher became the first Democrat to declare candidacy to replace Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (D), and at least two women—former state Representative Charlotte O'Hara and Stacy Rogers—are running for the Republican nomination. In Iowa, where Governor Kim Reynolds (R) is not seeking re-election, multiple women have either declared candidacy or expressed they might, including Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird and Julie Stauch, a longtime Democratic operative. In New Mexico, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland (D) has launched her bid to succeed term-limited Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D). Haaland, who was one of the first two Native women elected to Congress, would—if successful—become the first Native woman governor in the U.S. In Georgia, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) has announced her bid to become the first woman governor of her state. She would also be, if Earle-Sears is unsuccessful in 2025, the first Black woman governor nationwide. Former Vice President Kamala Harris (D), who could mark that same milestone, has reportedly told supporters that she will make her decision on whether or not to run for Governor of California by the end of summer, potentially joining a Democratic primary field that already includes multiple prominent women officeholders. The future for women's gubernatorial representation will include both gains and losses, but the magnitude of each rise or fall is yet to be determined. At the least, we know that women will be a key part of the story in the next two years of gubernatorial elections, and their success may well influence the forecasting of who will—or should—run for president in 2028.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Why did Trump leave G7 early? 'Much bigger' than Iran cease-fire, he says
President Donald Trump denied reports on Tuesday that he left the G7 summit in Canada early to work on a cease-fire between Israel and Iran, hinting that it was for something "much bigger." Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One during an overnight flight back to Washington that he was looking to achieve something better than a cease-fire and would meet with advisers in the Situation Room early tomorrow. "We're looking at better than a cease-fire," Trump said. "We're not looking for a cease-fire. I didn't say that I was looking for a cease-fire." When asked what was better than a cease-fire, Trump responded, "An end. A real end, not ceasefire. An end." The president added that "giving up entirely" was also an option. Trump earlier denied reports that he was rushing back to Washington to work on a cease-fire, saying on his Truth Social platform that "it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that." Trump also issued an ominous warning on the platform Monday evening, writing that "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON," and adding "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" When reporters aboard Air Force One asked about his call for the residents of Tehran to evacuate, Trump said there was no threat, but "there's a lot of bad things happening and I think it's safer for them to evacuate." Trump, however, echoed his stance on Iran's nuclear program. "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it's very simple," Trump told reporters. He accused Iranian leaders of being unwilling to reach an agreement over their nuclear program, and suggested he was now less interested in talking with them. "They should have done the deal. I told them, 'Do the deal,'" Trump said. "So I don't know. I'm not too much in the mood to negotiate." When Trump was asked again if the U.S. getting involved militarily would ensure a wipeout of Iran's nuclear program, Trump said, "I hope their program is going to be wiped out long before that. They're not going to have a nuclear weapon." While Trump appeared bearish on negotiations, he said that he may consider sending Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff to meet with the Iranians. "It depends on what happens when I get back," Trump said of the Israel-Iran conflict, telling reporters that "nobody's slowed up so far."
