Israel PM's office says it has agreed to cease-fire with Iran
KYODO NEWS - Jun 24, 2025 - 17:15 | All, World
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said Tuesday that it has agreed to a cease-fire with Iran, potentially pausing more than a week of aerial attack exchanges that have heightened fears of broader instability in the Middle East.
An Iranian diplomatic source also told Kyodo News that a cease-fire with Israel has been agreed. U.S. President Donald Trump previously announced the cease-fire on social media.
According to Reuters, the deal between Israel and Iran was mediated by Qatar. An Iranian diplomatic source said Russia and Turkey also helped broker the agreement.
The deal followed confusion over the status of the fighting after Trump claimed in a Monday post that Israel and Iran had agreed to a "complete and total" cease-fire that could lead to lasting peace between the longtime Middle East foes.
Trump said in his initial post that the cease-fire would be phased in over the next 24 hours, adding that an official end to the 12 days of fighting will be "saluted" by the world.
Trump said he believes everything will go smoothly, praising Israel and Iran for having the "stamina, courage, and intelligence" to end the conflict, which could have lasted for years and destroyed the entire Middle East, "but it didn't, and never will."
After the post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on the X social media platform that "provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 a.m. Tehran time (on Tuesday), we have no intention to continue our response afterwards."
He also made it clear that Israel had launched a war on Iran, not the other way around, adding Tehran will later make a final decision on the cessation of its military operations.
The recent conflict began after Israel attacked Iran on June 13, leading to retaliation by Tehran, including missile strikes on Tel Aviv, with many deaths and injuries among civilians on both sides.
Trump's announcement came after U.S. strikes on Iran's three key nuclear facilities over the weekend that he later said had "completely and totally obliterated" them.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said Iran will not surrender.
Earlier Monday, Iran launched multiple missiles toward a U.S. air base in Qatar, marking Tehran's first act of direct retaliation against the United States.
However, Qatar said its air defenses had intercepted the Iranian missiles, and there were no reports of injuries.
Trump said 14 missiles were fired, adding 13 of them were shot down, and the remaining one was "set free" as it flew in a nonthreatening direction. He called the attack by Iran a "very weak response."
In a social media post, Trump also thanked Iran for informing the United States in advance of the missile attack to avoid casualties.
"Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same," he said hours before making the announcement on the cease-fire.
CNN, citing a senior White House official, reported that a cease-fire deal was reached on the condition that Iran halt its attacks on Israel first.
Related coverage:
Japan appears to show some support for U.S. strikes on Iran
Most Japanese worried about Mideast war's impact on daily lives: poll
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
2 hours ago
- Kyodo News
Japan opposition chief sorry for remarks seen as "misogynistic"
KYODO NEWS - 2 minutes ago - 23:43 | All, Japan Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of Japan's small opposition Democratic Party for the People, apologized Wednesday for remarks that were perceived on social media as misogynistic. Asked why his party has received little support from women, Tamaki said in English at a press conference in Tokyo on Tuesday, "I think our policy is good not only for men but also I think it's very difficult to understand for them." While the party, led by the former Finance Ministry bureaucrat, has pledged to promote measures to boost disposable income and has gained support from male workers, media polls show its popularity among women remains lower than among men. Tamaki, who earned a master's degree from Harvard University, said in a post on X on Wednesday, "I regret that I used a poor expression. I am truly sorry," adding, "I had no intention of being misogynistic." In May, Tamaki drew the ire of social media users after he called the government's rice stockpiles "animal feed in a year." Related coverage: Japan opposition lawmaker says rice reserves mostly go to chickens Japan party execs bracing for possibility of Diet dissolution
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
By CHRISTINE FERNANDO Protesters confront police on the 101 Freeway near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests," Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror," state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable." 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is," ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Trump, 5% goal overshadow Zelenskyy at NATO summit
Both Trump and Zelenskyy are attending the NATO summit in the Netherlands, but the US leader and his 5% spending goal are set to overshadow Ukraine and its troubles.
