Iran executes nine convicted ISIL fighters
Iran has executed nine members of the ISIL (ISIS) armed group convicted of plotting attacks against civilians.
The Iranian judiciary's Mizan News Agency announced the executions on Tuesday, reporting that the men had been arrested in 2018 amid a clash with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the country's restive west that had killed many.
'The death sentences of nine members of the terrorist group were carried out after confirmation by Iran's Supreme Court,' the news outlet reported, adding that the men 'had planned to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians in Iran'.
The men were charged with waging war against God through armed rebellion, terrorism and illegal possession of military weapons, according to the report.
Officials said a cache of weapons was recovered from the group's base after they were arrested.
'This terrorist cell intended to infiltrate Iran and conduct simultaneous attacks in border and central cities,' IRGC ground forces commander General Mohammad Pakpour said at the time, according to the AFP news agency.
He added that three Iranian soldiers were killed in the operation as a number of the ISIL fighters detonated suicide vests.The armed group once controlled large swaths of Iraq and Syria before being driven back and significantly weakened in a sustained United States-led campaign. However, it has continued to carry out sporadic attacks in various countries, including Iran.
In January last year, ISIL claimed responsibility for two bombings targeting a memorial for assassinated Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in the city of Kerman, in which more than 90 people were killed.
At least 18 people were killed in an attack claimed by the group on Iran's parliament and a mausoleum in 2017.
Iran regularly announces arrests of alleged ISIL fighters. On Sunday, police said they had arrested 13 suspected members in raids across the country.
Last month, ISIL claimed responsibility for an attack on the Syrian army, in the group's first strike on government forces since the fall of Bashar al-Assad.
Iran executed at least 972 people last year, the second-highest number in the world last year, save for China, according to the human rights group Amnesty International.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ex-CIA analyst who admitted leaking docs about Israel strike on Iran gets 37 months in prison
An ex-CIA analyst was sentenced to more than three years in prison Wednesday for leaking top-secret documents about Israel's plans to retaliate against Iran last year. Asif William Rahman, 34, had pleaded guilty in January to two counts of willful retention and transmission of classified information after he was arrested for absconding with records from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency last October that indicated Israel was planning to launch airstrikes in response to a massive Iranian missile attack. Rahman, who had been a CIA employee since 2016 and had access to top secret documents, leaked the stolen information on social media platforms — forcing Israel to delay its attack. Advertisement He was sentenced to three years and one month in federal prison by US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, which is less than the government had demanded. 3 Rahman was sentenced to more than three years in federal prison. AP 'Asif Rahman violated his position of trust by illegally accessing, removing, and transmitting Top Secret documents vital to the national security of the United States and its allies,' US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert said in a statement. Advertisement 'The urgency with which Mr. Rahman was identified, arrested, charged, and prosecuted is a testament to the commitment and professionalism of the investigators and prosecutors who brought him to justice. 'This case should serve as a stern warning to those who choose to place their own goals over their allegiance to our nation.' Rahman was working in the US Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on Oct. 17, 2024, when he sneaked the documents out in his backpack, brought them to his home, photographed them and then transmitted them to other individuals, before destroying evidence of his actions, according to the Justice Department. The top-secret documents appeared on the 'Middle East Spectator' Telegram channel the following day and 'appeared publicly on multiple social media platforms, complete with the classification ranking,' prosecutors said. Advertisement The documents laid out intelligence gathered from satellite images of an Israeli base taken on Oct. 15 and 16. The breach forced Israeli officials to postpone their attack until Oct. 26. 3 The ex-CIA employee pleaded guilty in January to leaking classified information. NurPhoto via Getty Images 3 Rahman leaked documents related to Israel's plans to launch airstrikes against Iran. WAEL HAMZEH/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Advertisement Rahman 'repeatedly accessed and printed classified National Defense Information' up until his arrest in November of 2024, according to the DOJ. In the spring of 2024, when he was working in Virginia as a CIA analyst, he disclosed a batch of five secret and top-secret documents, making copies and giving them to people who weren't allowed to see them. And in the fall of 2024, he leaked another 10 classified documents. 'I fully accept responsibility for my conduct last year,' Rahman said in court Wednesday, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. 'There was no excuse for my actions.' Rahman's attorneys blamed his actions on 'family-related grief' and traumatic assignment in Iraq, compounded by Israel's war against Hamas.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Trump's EPA delivers new blow to Biden climate agenda
The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it's revoking limits on power plants' climate pollution — removing the cornerstone of a decadelong strategy to douse one of the nation's largest sources of heat-trapping gases. The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency would free thousands of existing and future facilities that burn coal or natural gas from regulations aimed at lowering their output of carbon dioxide pollution. It comes as President Donald Trump has shuttered climate change offices across the government, fired scientists and frozen billions of dollars in funding for renewable energy projects. EPA's plan to unshackle the power sector — the second-largest source of U.S. climate pollution, behind transportation — collides with the agency's past assertions that the most effective way to slow rising temperatures is by tackling the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases. Advertisement Administrator Lee Zeldin has reversed that argument. His proposed repeal of President Joe Biden's 2024 power plant climate rule asserts that the electricity-generating facilities contribute too little climate pollution globally to warrant being regulated. That's even though the United States is the world's second-largest climate polluter, ranking only behind China. The U.S. power sector releases more carbon emissions than all but five countries. EPA's new rule said that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. fossil fuel power plants are not significant because they 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions; cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available; and because this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' Power plants are responsible for almost a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or about 2.7 percent of all global climate pollution, according to EPA. The agency argued in its proposed rollback that the facilities' don't contribute 'significantly' to global warming, using language from a legal threshold for regulation in the Clean Air Act. The assertion promises to ignite court challenges from green groups and Democratic-led states. 'The collision between Republican political imperatives driven by the fossil fuel industry and fact and reality is particularly apparent in this because power plant emissions in the United States are a very significant part of global emissions,' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). 'So it's just plain false to pretend this isn't a big deal.' If the courts uphold the EPA rule, which the administration expects to finalize this year, it could free the government from legal requirements to regulate climate emissions from other stationary sources such as refineries and industrial facilities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin arrives to speak during a policy announcement at the EPA headquarters in Washington on Wednesday. | Francis Chung/POLITICO The administration also announced it will roll back (Reg. 2060-AW68) a separate Biden-era rule aimed at reducing power plants' releases of toxic mercury into the air (Reg. 2060-AV53), strengthening the original Obama-era standards. EPA's plan also targets a 2015 rule requiring new coal plants to capture a share of their carbon emissions. The Obama-era standard remained on the books throughout the first Trump administration — largely because no new coal-fired power plants were planned. The rollback comes as EPA targets the scientific underpinning for its authority to limit climate pollution — not just from power plants, but also the transportation sector, the largest U.S. source of warming gases. Called the endangerment finding, the landmark 2009 conclusion found that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health. EPA is expected to announce later this year whether it plans to repeal that finding, a step that could allow the Trump administration to stop regulating climate pollution from cars and trucks. Together, those vehicles are responsible for about 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions or around 3.4 percent globally. To regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine that such pollution 'causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' Jarrod Agen: Trump is a fan of fossil fuels, says they got a 'bad deal' lead image In the final days of Trump's first term in January 2021, EPA issued a surprise rule defining the significance threshold at 3 percent of U.S. emissions. Such a level would have maintained regulation over power plants but exempted every other industry, including oil and gas production, oil refining and industrial boilers used in a variety of manufacturing sectors. The rule was later vacated in court because the Trump administration had issued it as a final rule without going through the required public rulemaking process. This time, EPA is going even further by effectively saying that no industry in the U.S. contributes 'significantly' to climate change, and thus the agency has no authority to regulate (Reg. 2060-AW55). Yet the U.S. has contributed one-fifth of the pollution that has driven climate change to date and remains the world's second-largest source of planet-heating gases. That means greenhouse gases from any U.S. sector intensify warming, said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate science professor at Stanford University. The science shows that each increment of warming from those emissions causes a 'multiple, exponential effect' in terms of the impacts to the planet, he said. That brings severe economic costs. Diffenbaugh's research group found that over a nearly 30-year period, heavier precipitation linked to climate change resulted in 36 percent of U.S. financial losses from flooding, while hotter temperatures caused about 20 percent of insured crop losses. Damages amounted to tens of billions of dollars. 'We can absolutely expect the stresses that we experience from the climate system to accelerate,' he said. 'How much of that we experience really does depend on how much humans emit going forward in the future.' The agency is also proposing to repeal the Biden administration's power plant climate rule (Reg. 2060-AV09). That regulation effectively required coal-fired power plants planning to operate long-term to install technology to capture most of their carbon emissions — something no coal plant in the U.S. has ever done on that scale. It also required some new gas-fired power plants to eventually install carbon capture systems. Industry groups have argued that using carbon capture systems as the rule's benchmark technology was impractical and possibly illegal. During oral arguments over the rule in December, several federal appellate judges questioned whether carbon capture technology was ready for the kind of wide-scale deployment EPA's rule would require — even if the agency expected most power plants would choose to shut down rather than invest significant sums in pollution controls. The court never decided whether Biden's rule was lawful. The 2024 rule would also have required coal plants that commit to closing by 2039 to reduce emissions by co-firing with gas — a requirement the Trump administration proposed to strike down because it says it violates a Supreme Court prohibition on fuel shifting. The Biden rule was EPA's third effort to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. In 2015, the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, which relied heavily on utilities shifting away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables to reduce climate pollution across the electricity sector. The Supreme Court later ruled that the plan overstepped the agency's authority, which the justices said is limited to addressing pollution from specific sources as opposed to entire industries. During Trump's first term, EPA issued a rule requiring only minor efficiency upgrades to coal plants. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck that down because EPA had refused to consider other methods of emissions reductions. Despite EPA spinning its wheels on tackling power plant climate pollution for more than a decade, the sector has reduced its emissions anyway — by about 41 percent from its peak in 2007, according to EPA data. The decrease was caused by a long-term shift away from coal as market forces and the risk of EPA eventually imposing climate rules pushed the sector to use more natural gas and renewable energy. Zack Colman, Annie Snider and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pa. House passes bill to raise the minimum wage
The state Capitol in Harrisburg. (Capital-Star file) The state House voted along party lines Wednesday to raise the minimum wage to $15 for most Pennsylvanians, and to $12 for those working in smaller, rural counties. It's a significant step in the latest effort by Democrats to get it above the federal rate of $7.25. Pennsylvania's minimum wage has not been hiked since 2008 and is lower than all surrounding states — New York, Ohio, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The measure's sponsor, House Labor and Industry Committee chair Jason Dawkins (D-Philadelphia), said the bill is in an attempt to compromise with Republicans who have long warned about the potential impacts on businesses, especially in smaller counties with a lower cost of living. 'Since I've been chair, we've been trying to figure out a different approach to get this done,' Dawkins told the Capital-Star. 'This time around, we had a little bit more insight into where our challenges lie, one particularly being that some of our counties were worried about moving too quickly, and some were not comfortable going over $12.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE A previous bill sponsored by Dawkins passed the House in 2023, but died in the Republican-controlled Senate. And in 2019, the Senate passed a Democratic-led bill to raise it to $9.25, which died in the then-GOP-controlled House. Dawkins' latest bill would see the minimum wage rise gradually each year, reaching $15 in most counties on Jan. 1, 2028. It would also raise the tipped minimum wage from $2.83 to 60% of the minimum. Counties with populations below 210,000, with the exception of Centre, Monroe and Pike counties, would only see the minimum wage rise to $12 in the same timeframe. A spokesperson for the House Democratic Caucus said the three smaller counties were put in the $15 bracket at the request of Democratic members who represent them. One exception to the gradual rise to $15 would be Philadelphia County, which Dawkins represents. There, the minimum wage would rise to $15 on January 1, 2026. 'Philadelphia has the highest population of folks who are in what we call deep poverty levels,' Dawkins said. He added there is particular urgency given the possibility some of those people may lose access to federal benefits like Medicaid and food assistance under a proposed bill moving through the GOP-controlled U.S. Congress. 'We wanted to have some type of safety net there because we know those folks might be losing benefits and other services,' he said. But Dawkins' attempt to offer an olive branch to GOP lawmakers in the form of gradual wage hike and a lower target in small counties appears to have failed in his own chamber. Every House Republican voted against the bill, and many criticized it during a two-hour debate on the floor Wednesday afternoon. 'Not every wage is designed to be a livable wage,' Minority Leader Jesse Topper (R-Bedford) 'My 16-year-old son is not working for a livable wage. Someone who is retired and is helping out part-time, that is not necessarily a livable wage.' He also warned that raising the minimum wage could result in the elimination of low wage jobs and harm small businesses in particular. Others opposed the very provisions Dawkins said were intended to earn bipartisan support. Rep. Kate Klunk (R-York) warned that creating different minimum wages across counties could lead to confusion for businesses that cross county lines, or encourage business owners to set up shop where the wage is lower. 'This county-based patchwork of minimum wages is going to be a mess,' Klunk said. She used examples of businesses with locations in York and Adams counties as examples, including golf courses that straddle the border between them. 'This bill is truly unworkable,' she said. 'It is a compliance nightmare.' Rep. Mike Jones (R-York) was one of few Republicans to signal openness to raising the minimum wage during debate, but said he could not support Dawkins' bill. 'I do commend the majority chair for what I think is a good faith attempt at a reasonable compromise,' he said. However, he added that he would want to see exceptions to the minimum wage for nonprofits and high-school aged employees. 'Potential to find middle ground' To become law, the bill will have to pass the Republican-controlled Senate. Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana) said that there may be room for compromise on a minimum wage increase, especially if paired with Republican-backed deregulation efforts he said could help grow 'maximum wage jobs.' 'Making sure working families have access to good, family-sustaining jobs is key to helping our commonwealth grow and thrive,' Pittman told the Capital-Star in a statement. 'There is potential to finding [sic] a middle ground for an increase, but any possible action would need to be a commonsense adjustment, and sensitive to the impact changes would have on small businesses and non-profit organizations.' Republican Sen. Dan Laughlin (R-Erie), who has previously introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15, commended the House's effort, but said he would not support a bill with a county-by-county approach. 'While I appreciate that the House is trying to advance the conversation, I do not support HB 1549 in its current form,' Laughlin said in an emailed statement. 'A minimum wage tied to county size just deepens the economic divides we're supposed to be addressing. If we're going to get serious about raising the minimum wage, we need to do it uniformly across the state, not with a patchwork approach that leaves people behind based on where they live.' Laughlin was an early Republican supporter of raising the minimum wage to $15 in Pennsylvania. But national trends may indicate more openness from members of his party this time around. On Tuesday, conservative U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 for all Americans. He told NBC News, 'If we're going to be a working people's party, we have to do something for working people. And working people haven't gotten a raise in years. So they need a raise.' His comments reflect an openness to his party's increasing appeal to working class voters that was made apparent in the latest general election, which saw them move away from their traditional support of Democrats. Dawkins, the Pennsylvania bill's sponsor, is also aware of the shift, and hopes that it will help the bill earn the support that it needs to pass. 'I'm excited by the prospects, but I'm also disappointed that there could be a federal minimum wage that's gonna be higher than the state minimum wage — and it's being offered by one of the most conservative members of Congress,' he joked. 'But I'm hopeful it'll help folks come around to the idea.' 'This is what I believe we got elected to do,' he added. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
