Iran foreign minister says US attacks on nuclear sites 'outrageous'
"The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences," he posted on X, adding that the attacks were "lawless and criminal" behaviour.
"In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people."
Iran's foreign ministry said the attacks showed that Washington "will stop at no illegality or crime" to support Israel.
"It has now become abundantly clear to all that the very regime which enjoys permanent membership in the Security Council is beholden to no principle or morality and will stop at no illegality or crime to serve the aims of a genocidal, occupying regime," the ministry said in a statement, referring to the United States and Israel respectively.
Meanwhile, Iraq warned that the US attacks on its neighbour Iran's nuclear facilities threaten peace and stability in the Middle East.
Iraq "expresses its deep concern and strong condemnation of the targeting of nuclear facilities" in Iran, government spokesperson Basim Alawadi said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 days ago
- IOL News
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Exposes the Simmering Inequities in the UN System
A young boy watches as his paper lantern floats out on the Motoyasu River past the Atomic Bomb Dome (back R) to mark the 80th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, in the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 2025. Image: AFP Abbey Makoe The first week of every August in history exposes, in my view, the depths of the failures and deep-seated false pretences of international diplomacy as a vehicle for civil resolution of differences and a consensus-building mechanism. It was on August 6 and 9, respectively, 80 years ago, when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki within three days apart, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent people in an unprecedented and unexpected jiffy. Many around the world often place tremendous importance on the total fatalities from the nuclear bombardment of the two Japanese cities in 1945. However, what I think of greater significance is the world's response in the aftermath all these years later. It is in the lackadaisical global response that I take umbrage. The disingenuity and deceitful nature and form of diplomatic engagements that have followed the dreadful events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have steadfastly exposed what social scientists refer to as the disordered faults of progress in the post-WWII international world architecture built on the cooperative nature of the UN Charter. Every year on August 6 and 9, Japan holds 'Peace Ceremonies' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a painful period of annual reflection for the entire Japanese nation. It is a time when historical wounds are reopened. History revisited with tears and heartbreak. Over and above, it is a time to mitigate the pains of lingering yet unanswered questions: Why did the US bomb the cities and secondly, perhaps more importantly, why has the US not apologised throughout 80 years? For the uninitiated, let me recap: From Hiroshima alone, then a city of 350,000 people, America's atomic explosion killed a total of 140,000 innocent civilians. In Nagasaki, 74,000 people perished shortly after the US pilots had dropped the atomic bombs on the city. This year, Russia, a leading global nuclear power, expressed its exasperation with the seeming double standards in international relations that have permeated every sphere of society, including the highest office at the UN. In a Global North-dominated world order, led by the US through its hegemony dating back to immediately after the end of World War II in 1945, the narrative around Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been dominated by the West, which has refrained from blaming the US for the atomic bombings. Responding to Washington's failure to apologise for the unprecedented atomic bombardment in Japan, and the world's failure to demand accountability, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was vividly livid. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ She said Western politicians deliberately echo one another, consciously avoiding mentioning that it was the US that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead, added Zakharova, they push a line that says 'both the US and Russia had failed to learn lessons from those mistakes'. She called it an unbelievable fake narrative. 'And yet the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres,' she charged, followed suit, stating on the occasion of this tragedy that fully omitted any mention of the United States.' She added that the narrative was intended to erase the Hiroshima and Nagasaki guilt from the US, and in doing so, they apportion blame to Russia. It is the West's nuclear hypocrisy, she said. Zakharova further asked: 'What does lack of condemnation mean for the US? It creates a comfort zone for them. It doesn't push them out of it. It keeps them in it so they don't have to wonder over questions like: Do you regret it? Would you do it again?' Emmanuel Pastreich, President of the Asia Institute, said the 80th commemoration of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings should mark a time for truth and accountability. He said the 1945 bombings 'weren't militarily necessary – they were a demonstration – a test of power, a message to the world and a geopolitical gambit targeting the USSR'. He added: 'Eighty years later, the US still refuses to apologise, clinging to nuclear dominance as a rickety crutch. Instead of disarmament, they have modernised those weapons, spending trillions while science and ethics decay.' The Western narrative over Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to be domineering to such an extent that, now a close ally of the US and a member of the US-led G7, it finds itself egg-dancing around the authentic history of bombings. At this week's ceremony at the atomic memorial site of the tragedy, the Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba could only express mourning for '100,000 precious lives' but never named the US, the nation that everybody knows had dropped the bombs. Such is an example of the manifestation of bogus diplomacy that dominates the US-led unipolar world order. This blatant attempt to misrepresent history cannot succeed. It has been correctly documented by upright historians, and instead of tweaking the naked facts, the US and the West would do well to own up and do good by the people of Japan, who still hurt to this day. In an ideal international world order based on the UN Charter of equality and mutual regard for one another, the spectre of unilateralism would never have succeeded to the point where the G7 has all but replaced the UN governance system.
Eyewitness News
06-08-2025
- Eyewitness News
Netanyahu says Israel must complete defeat of Hamas to free hostages
JERUSALEM - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel must "complete" the defeat of Hamas in Gaza to secure the release of the remaining hostages, days ahead of a cabinet meeting to discuss an updated war plan. Recent footage of weak and emaciated captives has sparked outrage in Israel, while UN experts also warn of an unfolding famine for Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli media have said the premier is considering ordering the total occupation of Gaza, even as international pressure mounts for him to end the war, with a senior UN official warning Tuesday that expanding the fighting risked "catastrophic consequences". "It is necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, to free all our hostages and to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Netanyahu said during a visit to an army training facility. His office later said he had held a three-hour "security discussion" with army chief Eyal Zamir, but did not disclose any new war plans. The premier's office has said the security cabinet will convene later in the week to approve new instructions. Citing cabinet members, public broadcaster Kan said Netanyahu had "decided to extend the fight to areas where hostages might be held". But some major media outlets such as Channel 12 have suggested that the rumoured expansion of operations might only be a negotiating tactic. While the reported plan has not been approved, it has already drawn angry reactions from the Palestinian Authority and Gaza's Hamas-run government. Hamas insisted such a move would not shift its position in ceasefire talks, demanding the withdrawal of all forces from Gaza. "The ball is in the hands of... (Israel) and the Americans," senior Hamas official Hossam Badran told AFP, adding that the militant group wanted to "end the war and the famine". UN assistant secretary-general Miroslav Jenca told the Security Council on Tuesday that a widening of the war "would risk catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinians and could further endanger the lives of the remaining hostages". Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was also in New York attending a Security Council meeting on the plight of the hostages. US President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed disgust over the videos released by Hamas, one of which showed an emaciated Israeli hostage purportedly digging his own grave. "I hope a lot of people do get to see it, as bad as it is, because I think it's a horrible thing," Trump told reporters. 'AGREEMENT MUST BE REACHED' Over the war's 22 months, Israeli forces have devastated large parts of the Gaza Strip, where a humanitarian crisis has taken hold. The war was sparked by Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack, which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to a tally based on official figures. Palestinian militants also seized 251 hostages, 49 of whom remain held in Gaza including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. The Israeli offensive has killed at least 61,020 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry. Netanyahu has faced growing pressure on several fronts. Domestically, families of hostages are demanding a ceasefire to bring their loved ones home. And around the world, there are increasing calls for a truce to allow food into a starving Gaza. The International Committee of the Red Cross on Tuesday said it was "ready to bring in medicine, food and family news for the hostages in Gaza", and to "scale up the delivery of life-saving aid safely to civilians". But "to do this, an agreement must be reached between Israel and Hamas." Meanwhile, Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners demand to keep fighting and reoccupy Gaza for the long haul, after Israel withdrew settlers and troops stationed there two decades ago. AID 'EXPLOITED' Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza in early March, which it only began easing more than two months later to allow a US-backed private agency, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), to open food distribution centres. United Nations special rapporteurs called on Tuesday for the GHF to be immediately dismantled, saying aid was being "exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas". COGAT, the Israeli defence ministry body overseeing civil affairs in the Palestinian territories, said it would partially reopen private sector trade with Gaza to reduce its reliance on aid deliveries. On the ground in Gaza, the civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed at least 56 Palestinians who were waiting near aid distribution sites on Tuesday. The Israeli military told AFP troops had "fired warning shots" in the direction "a gathering of Gazans advancing" towards them near one of those sites, in the territory's south, but that it was "not aware of any casualties". In northern Gaza, where the civil defence said 20 people were killed not far from an aid crossing, an AFP journalist saw bodies brought to Hamad Hospital. The army told AFP it was looking into the report.
The Star
30-07-2025
- The Star
The MKP's two-faced foreign relations on Western Sahara
THE Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a complete African Union (AU) member state and is recognised by more than 40 United Nations (UN) member states. Despite decades of occupation by Morocco and the ongoing struggle for self-determination, its existence is a testament to the resilience of its people and the enduring principles of international law regarding decolonisation. The UN classified this contested territory as a non-self-governing territory in 1963, following Spain's submission of information under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter. However, the territory has remained in a state of legal limbo despite multiple resolutions, diplomatic interventions and a protracted conflict involving Morocco, the Polisario Front and Algeria. This status affirms that the Sahrawi people have yet to exercise their right to self-determination under international law. The recent political stunt by Jacob Zuma's Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party), which dismissed this right as 'Balkanisation', reflects a troubling ahistorisation of a people's identity and a flagrant disregard for international legal norms. South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relied on its reputation for principled support of the occupied peoples. The MK Party's stance on Western Sahara would cripple this moral standing, inviting accusations of hypocrisy. Worse, Zuma's use of the national flag during party-to-government talks with Morocco was improper, as he acted solely in his MK Party capacity, not in any official national role. In an op-ed, MK Party parliamentarian Mzanyele Manyi attempts to reframe the party's position as a rejection of 'Eurocentric binaries' and a commitment to precolonial African structures. A closer examination reveals a deeply contradictory and, frankly, two-faced approach that undermines the very principles the MK Party claims to uphold. Manyi's argument hinges on a romanticised and selective interpretation of history, conveniently overlooking the realities of international law and the fundamental right to self-determination that the AU has consistently championed. To suggest that Western Sahara was merely 'integrated with Morocco' through 'trade, kinship and religious institutions' before colonialism, and that this somehow equates to legitimate sovereignty, is to deliberately blur the lines between historical influence and political dominion. While precolonial connections existed, they do not negate the distinct identity of the Saharawi people or their internationally recognised right to choose their destiny. The assertion that Moroccan Sultans exercised 'spiritual and political suzerainty' akin to the British monarch's role over the Commonwealth is a disingenuous comparison. Based on colonial logics, the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of so-called independent states. Thus, it does not provide a historical justification for territorial claims over a people who have consistently sought their statehood. Furthermore, equating Morocco's actions in Western Sahara to an 'African character' while simultaneously dismissing the Saharawi's struggle for independence as 'intellectually lazy and historically dishonest' reveals a profound bias. Who, then, defines 'African character' in this narrative? Is it only those who align with pre-colonial monarchies, regardless of the aspirations of indigenous populations? Nevertheless, the 1975 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion found no ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and Morocco. Manyi's dismissal of this advisory opinion as 'just that… an opinion, not a binding judgment' is a classic legal evasion, as it ignores its foundational role in the UN and AU's stance on decolonisation. While advisory opinions are not directly binding in the same way as contentious judgments, they carry significant legal weight and are highly influential in international law. The ICJ explicitly stated that it 'did not find any ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity'. This critical finding, conveniently downplayed by Manyi, directly challenges the MK Party's narrative of historical Moroccan suzerainty. To suggest that those who rely on this opinion are 'disingenuously using it as a hammer' is to accuse the international legal framework itself of being disingenuous when it doesn't align with the MK Party's preferred outcome. Furthermore, it is crucial to recall that Spain's 1975 tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania, which ceded administrative control of Western Sahara without a referendum, was a direct violation of UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which affirms the right to self-determination for all colonial territories. The MK Party's purported 'rejection of the Balkanisation of Africa' is perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy. For a party to claim it stands 'firmly against the further splintering of our continent into externally sponsored micro-states' while simultaneously advocating for the annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco is a monumental contradiction. The Saharawi Republic is a member of the AU, recognised by a significant number of African states, including South Africa. Its struggle is one of decolonisation and self-determination, not 'external sponsorship' designed to create a 'micro-state' for foreign interests. This is a classic case of projection, where the MK Party attributes to the Saharawi what many accuse Morocco of pursuing: territorial expansion under the guise of historical claims. The appeal to 'African sovereignty' and the 'legitimacy of political structures that preceded colonial conquest,' specifically the Moroccan monarchy, is a dangerous precedent. While respecting indigenous institutions is crucial, it cannot come at the expense of human rights or the universally accepted principle of self-determination. If the MK Party genuinely champions African Renaissance, it should uphold the rights of all African peoples, not just those aligned with powerful historical monarchies. To suggest that the AU's decision to readmit Morocco was purely an act of 'African agency' without considering geopolitical manoeuvring or economic influence is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Morocco had voluntarily left the continental body in 1984 because it disagreed with the decision of the AU's predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), to admit the Sahrawi Republic as a full member — effectively refusing to share a room with the very people it claims to share heritage and historical ties with. What Manyi omits to mention is that Western Sahara suffered a similar fate to that of black South Africans during the 1960s, when Britain conferred political independence on Afrikaners. Spain ceded the territory to Rabat instead of the Sahrawi people, leading to a political standoff with Mauritania, which had also made a concurrent claim. Following the colonial terra nullius myth, Afrikaners also make false claims that the land was empty or unused prior to their arrival and that Black South Africans were latecomers, erasing centuries of indigenous presence, land use, and political organisation by African communities. Moroccans follow almost an identical logic in Western Sahara, portraying the territory as historically ungoverned or inherently part of Morocco, thus denying the Sahrawi people's longstanding political identity and their right to self-determination. Like Zambia and others, MK Party appears to have also fallen under the spell of the despotic foreign policy of a pariah state that seeks validation from former colonial powers. In effect, Morocco exercises what Moses Ochonu calls 'colonialism by proxy', a form of indirect rule on behalf of European interests eager to exploit Western Sahara's rich mineral wealth, particularly phosphates and iron ore, without Sahrawi consent. Phosphates are crucial for fertiliser production and global agriculture. Morocco's extractivist agenda violates international law and entrenches neocolonial control over resources that rightfully belong to the Sahrawi people. The export of phosphates from Boucraa has been the subject of international legal challenges, including rulings by the European Court of Justice that trade agreements with Morocco cannot legally include resources from Western Sahara without the consent of the Sahrawi people. Beyond phosphates, Morocco has developed significant wind and solar farms in the occupied territory, such as Nareva's 50MW Foum el Oued farm, specifically powering the Bou Craa phosphate mines. Furthermore, European Union (EU) and Russian fishing fleets continue to plunder Western Sahara's rich Atlantic waters under trade agreements that, per ECJ rulings, cannot lawfully apply to Sahrawi territory. Similarly, Morocco has permitted large-scale agribusiness exports, including citrus and tomatoes, using water-intensive farming on occupied Sahrawi land, exacerbating local water scarcity and environmental degradation. Under international law, primarily UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 (1962) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the Sahrawi people are the rightful owners of these resources. However, as the territory remains non-self-governing and partially occupied by Morocco, any extraction or export without their free, prior and informed consent is considered illegal by many legal scholars, the AU and the UN. Despite international efforts to find a resolution, including the Baker Plans (Baker I and Baker II), which proposed varying degrees of autonomy for Western Sahara followed by a referendum on self-determination, viable alternatives remain underdeveloped. These UN-backed proposals, though at times accepted by one party and rejected by the other, represent pathways that prioritise the Sahrawi people's right to choose, offering a stark contrast to Morocco's unilateral autonomy initiative. Beyond the MK Party's internal contradictions, Rabat's international manoeuvring also merits scrutiny. France's 2024 endorsement of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, following the US recognition, indicates a concerning shift by major powers, prioritising geopolitical interests over international law and Western Sahara's self-determination. This trend is further amplified by Morocco's strategic utilisation of Israel normalisation, particularly through the Abraham Accords. This exploits a complex regional dynamic to garner global support for its occupation, at the expense of established principles of decolonisation and human rights. The MK Party's position on Western Sahara, as articulated by Manyi, is not a nuanced 'African-centred reading of history'. It is a thinly veiled justification for an international relations position that prioritises a selective historical narrative and the interests of a specific state over the fundamental right of a people to determine their future. MK Party's stance effectively legitimises resource theft disguised as anti-Western posturing. Therefore, the MK Party's foreign relations strategy is not only inconsistent but also fundamentally two-faced: it champions African unity and decolonisation in rhetoric, while actively undermining it in practice, particularly concerning the Saharawi people. The 'ghosts of colonial borders' that Manyi wishes to reject seem to linger quite strongly in the MK Party's approach, but only when it suits their political agenda. There is a need to address the MKP's rhetoric-reality gap, evident in their endorsement of Morocco's 'autonomy plan' as 'decolonisation' while simultaneously silencing Sahrawi self-determination. This constitutes a colonial proxy masked in anti-Western slogans. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
