Iran says its carried out 'mighty and successful' attack on US base - as Qatar air defences 'thwart assault'
Iran claims it has carried out a "mighty and successful response" to "America's aggression" after launching missile attacks on a US military base in Qatar and Iraq.
The attack comes after the US on three key nuclear sites in Iran over the weekend.
Iran's response this evening is the latest escalation in tensions in the volatile region.
Qatar has said there are no casualties at the al Udeid base following the strikes and that its "air defences thwarted the attack and successfully intercepted the Iranian missiles".
People in Qatar's capital, Doha, had stopped and gazed up at the sky as missiles flew and interceptors fired.
Follow latest:
Iran had announced on state television that it had attacked American forces stationed at the al Udeid airbase.
A caption on screen called it "a mighty and successful response" to "America's aggression" as martial music played.
Initial reports claimed Iran had also targeted a base housing US troops in western Iraq, but a US military official has now told Reuters news agency the attack in Qatar was the only one detected.
A US government official has said the White House and US defence department is "closely monitoring" the potential threats to its base.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump is in the Situation Room in the White House with his team following the Iranian strikes.
Read more:
The attacks came shortly after Qatar closed its airspace as a precaution amid threats from Iran.
Senior diplomatic sources in the region have told Sky News that some Gulf nations and the US were given prior warning before Iran launched its missiles.
Just before the explosions, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on the social platform X: "We neither initiated the war nor seeking it. But we will not leave invasion to the great Iran without answer."
Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq shut their airspaces after the attack, while the Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways said it is rerouting several routes today and tomorrow due to restrictions in parts of the Middle East.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Donald Trump raised the idea of toppling Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei yesterday, it wasn't just the idea that was surprising. It was the particular phrase he used to describe it. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' he posted yesterday on Truth Social. The phrase became toxic for a reason. Two years ago, an essay in the Claremont Review of Books noted that regime change entered the popular lexicon in 'the early days of the 9/11 wars, when the Bush (43) Administration argued that the security of America and of the entire world depended not merely on defeating hostile countries militarily but on changing their governments into ones more inherently peaceable and favorable to our interests.' Of course, regimes change all the time, but regime change came to mean 'external, forcible transformation from 'authoritarianism' or 'dictatorship.'' This sounds very much like what Trump is discussing. Having switched from discouraging Israeli military strikes against Iran to joining them, he appears to now be toying with broader ambitions. (Trump offers few endorsements stronger than calling something 'politically incorrect.') But the writer of the Claremont Review essay, a prominent right-wing intellectual, warned about such projects. 'We know how that worked out. Regimes were changed all right, but not into democracies,' he wrote. 'And some of them—e.g., the one in Afghanistan—20 years later changed back to the same regime American firepower had overthrown in 2001.' That writer was Michael Anton. Today he is the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department (a bit of an oxymoron in this administration), and in April, the White House named him to lead the U.S. delegation at technical talks with Iran on a nuclear deal—negotiations that are presumably irrelevant for the time being. Trump's abrupt shift has thrown the MAGA right into acrimony. In truth, the president has never been a pacificist, as I wrote last week. During the 2016 GOP primary, Trump cannily grasped public anger at the Iraq War and turned it against his rivals. Thinkers such as Anton and politicians such as Vice President J. D. Vance then tried to retrofit a more complete ideology of retrenchment and restraint onto it, but Trump is an improviser, not an ideologue. No one should have been too surprised by the president's order to bomb. Still, his rhetorical embrace of regime change was stunning even to those who never bought into his identity as a dove, and certainly to some of his aides. Perhaps Anton was not surprised to see his view so cavalierly discarded; after all, he once likened backing Trump to playing Russian roulette. But Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were unprepared for the change in rhetoric. Rubio solemnly told Fox Business that the U.S. is not at war with the country it just dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance on. Vance, on Meet the Press, insisted, 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out.' A few hours later, Trump contradicted him directly, in what would have been embarrassing for someone still capable of the emotion. Vance's views on foreign policy are deeply shaped by the Iraq War, in which he served. Now his boss is at risk of speedwalking that conflict one country to the east. The Iraq War was the product of months of preparation by the George W. Bush administration: military mobilization, avid though unsuccessful attempts to rally international support, an extended period of manufacturing consensus in Congress and in the American public. Yet despite that work, and as even proponents of regime change in Iran acknowledge, the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War was a disaster, perhaps the worst American foreign-policy blunder in history. The U.S. government had good war plans for getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime but had not effectively thought through what would happen after that. Trump has done even less of that thinking, and leads a nation far more politically divided and warier of foreign intervention. Americans have long viewed Iran negatively: A Fox News poll before this weekend's airstrikes found that roughly three-quarters of them view Iran as a 'real security threat.' Still, another poll earlier this month found that most don't want the U.S. to get involved in armed conflict there. A Pew Research Center poll in May even found that slightly more Americans think that the United States is its own 'greatest threat' than that Iran is. Trump's flippant transformation of 'Make America great again' into 'Make Iran great again' exemplifies the hubris of the Iraq War project that he had promised to leave behind. Just as U.S. officials claimed that Iraq could be easily and quickly converted into an American-style democracy, Trump wants to export his catchphrase to Iran, where the implementation would be even hazier than it is here. Iran is a country of some 90 million people, not a dollhouse to be rearranged. Can regime change work? The answer depends on how success is defined. In 1973, for example, the U.S. backed a coup in Chile, toppling the leftist leader Salvador Allende. It worked: Allende was killed and replaced by Augusto Pinochet, who created a stable, market-based, U.S.-friendly Chilean government. But doing that involved horrifying repression and the killing and disappearances of thousands of critics, leaving a black mark on the U.S. record. In another case of regime change, the U.S. government helped topple Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. This, too, was an immediate success. Mossadegh was removed, and the Washington-friendly Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. But the legacy of the moment stretched on much longer. The shah was also brutally repressive, and Iranians remembered the 1953 coup bitterly. In 1979, a revolution swept Iran, deposing Pahlavi and installing a virulently anti-American government. That regime still rules in Tehran—for now, at least. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Iran launched strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar, which were intercepted by Qatar's air-defense system, according to the Qatari government. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them the chance to contest their removals. President Donald Trump called on 'everyone' to ' keep oil prices down ' after America's recent attack on Iranian nuclear sites sparked fear of higher oil prices. Dispatches Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read Extreme Violence Without Genocide By Graeme Wood Signs of violent criminality are ubiquitous in South Africa. Electric fences and guard dogs protect homes containing something worth stealing. Reported rapes, carjackings, and armed robberies all occur far more frequently than in the United States. In Bloemfontein, one of the safer cities, I asked a hotel clerk for directions to a coffee shop, and she said it was 'just across the road,' not more than 500 feet away. When I headed out on foot, she stopped me and said that for my safety, 'I would prefer that you drive.' More From The Atlantic Culture Break Play. In Death Stranding 2, people play as an unlikely hero: a courier who trips over rocks and experiences sunburn. It's the Amazonification of everything, now as a video game, Simon Parkin writes. Disconnect. Franklin Schneider has never owned a smartphone. And, based on the amount of social and libidinal energy that phones seem to have sucked from the world, he's not sure he ever wants to.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Media Matters sues to block FTC probe over Musk's X boycott claims
By Jody Godoy (Reuters) -Media Matters asked a court on Monday to block the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's probe into whether media watchdogs coordinated advertising boycotts, calling it retaliation for the group's criticism of Elon Musk, a major donor to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The FTC demanded Media Matters hand over communications with other groups that evaluate misinformation and hate speech and documents related to lawsuits where Musk's social media platform, X, has accused some groups of orchestrating advertiser boycotts. Media Matters, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal advocacy group, said there is no basis to accuse it of coordinating a boycott, and that the FTC's demands have chilled its ability to publish articles on the agency and Musk. "The Court should put an end to the latest effort by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk's government allies to punish, intimidate, and harass Media Matters for publishing reporting they do not like," the group said. The FTC probe, first reported by Reuters on May 22, marked an escalation in U.S. government scrutiny into whether groups like Media Matters helped advertisers coordinate to pull ad dollars from X after Musk bought the social media site formerly known as Twitter in 2022. Media Matters said in its lawsuit on Monday that the court should block the request, as it did similar investigations by Republican attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. X sued Media Matters in 2023, accusing the organization of defaming it in an article that said ads for major brands had appeared next to posts on X that touted far-right extremist content. Media Matters has denied the allegations, and sued X earlier this year, accusing it of abusive, costly and meritless lawsuits to punish the group for its reporting on advertising on X after Musk purchased the site. The Media Matters said it found advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast's Xfinity placed alongside posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. "X initiated a vendetta-driven campaign of libel tourism, spanning three jurisdictions in three countries, all arising from the same conduct: Media Matters' use of X's platform in accordance with X's Terms of Service and its truthful reporting on the results," the complaint said.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne says Dems 'sound like hypocrites' for demanding congressional approval for strikes
Radio host Charlamagne tha God called out Democrats on Monday for their outrage about President Donald Trump launching strikes on Iran without congressional authority, saying they turned a blind eye when Democrats recently did the same. The U.S. launched a surprise strike using B-2 stealth bombers on Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities on Saturday. "All three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine said during a briefing at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., called out Trump for the strikes during a Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," arguing the head of state should have begun the process by first "coming to Congress and asking for authorization to do this." He continued, "That's the constitutional approach to this. He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time. And we could have had a discussion about it." Charlamagne agreed, but argued Democrats like Kelly should look in the mirror. "Morgyn, this is one of those times when politicians sound like hypocrites, because Mark Kelly is right, the president should get congressional approval," he said about the national war powers debate. "But there have been a bunch of presidents who have ordered strikes without congressional approval." "Barack Obama did it against Libya. Joe Biden ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Bill Clinton did it with - 'Kosovo' I think you pronounce it?" he recalled. "So presidents ordering military action without congressional approval has become pretty routine." Co-host Morgyn V. Wood noted that this issue is now being cited for possible impeachment. "So why didn't it lead to an impeachment for everybody else? Like, when Barack Obama did it, when Biden did it, when Clinton did it?" Charlamagne asked. Wood said that there have been calls for impeachment over presidents' military actions without congressional approval before, but Charlamagne was not persuaded. "I don't even remember hearing about it during the Joe Biden administration," Charlamagne said. "I guess that's just because of the way Trump has been moving," co-host DJ Envy said. "But we didn't hear about it when Obama did it. We didn't hear about it when Biden did it." "I do remember when Obama did it," Charlamagne said. "When Obama did it, I do remember, you know, people in Congress saying he needed congressional approval, and they were making it a thing. I don't remember the Biden thing at all. I don't remember that even making a headline." After Wood recalled the widespread outrage over Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charlamagne said he recalled Biden's lack of accountability for military missteps after an NBC News piece headlined, "Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine."
