Supreme leader, in first appearance since ceasefire, says Iran would strike back if attacked
DUBAI, June 26 (Reuters) - Iran would respond to any future U.S. attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel.
Khamenei, 86, said any attack on Iran would come at "great cost", and noted that Iran had fired on the largest U.S. base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes.
"The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region," Khamenei said.
His pre-recorded remarks were aired on state television. As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the 12-day Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.
"The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centres in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made," he added.
U.S. President Donald Trump said "Sure" on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
A judge resisted Trump's order on gender identity. The EEOC just fired her
The federal agency charged with protecting workers' civil rights has terminated a New York administrative judge who opposed White House directives, including President Donald Trump's executive order decreeing male and female as two "immutable" sexes. In February, Administrative Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, called Trump's order "unethical" and criticized Acting Chair Andrea Lucas — Trump's pick to lead the agency — for complying with it by pausing work on legal cases involving discrimination claims from transgender workers. In an email copied to more than 1,000 colleagues, Ortiz pressed Lucas to resign. Ortiz was fired on Tuesday after being placed on administrative leave last month. The EEOC declined Wednesday to comment on the termination, saying it does not comment on personnel matters. In response to the president's order declaring two unchangeable sexes, the EEOC moved to drop at least seven of its pending legal cases on behalf of transgender workers who filed discrimination complaints. The agency, which enforces U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws, also is classifying all new gender identity-related cases as its lowest priority. The actions signaled a major departure from the EEOC's prior interpretation of civil rights law. In her mass February email criticizing the agency's efforts to comply with Trump's order, Ortiz told Lucas, "You are not fit to be our chair much less hold a license to practice law." The letter was leaked on Reddit, where it gained more than 10,000 "upvotes." Many users cheered its author. The EEOC subsequently revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for "discourteous conduct." Ortiz said she continued to "raise the alarm" about the agency's treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming complainants, and convey her opposition to the agency's actions. She sent an April 24 email to Lucas and several other internal email groups with the subject line, "If You're Seeking Power, Here's Power" and a link to Tears for Fears' 1985 hit "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." She contested her proposed termination earlier this month, arguing in a document submitted by a union representative that she was adhering to her oath of office by calling out behavior she believes is illegal. Ortiz "views the Agency's actions regarding LGBTQIA+ complainants to have made the EEOC a hostile environment for LGBTQIA+ workers," and believes that leadership has "abandoned the EEOC's core mission," the document says. The judge was hired to work at the EEOC during the first Trump administration, and while she disagreed with some policies then, "she did not take any action because there was no ostensible illegality which compelled her to do so," the document stated. "What is happening under the current administration is unprecedented." The letter requested the withdrawal of Ortiz's proposed termination, the removal of all disciplinary documents from her personnel file, and that Ortiz be allowed "to continue doing her job." The six-page termination notice came anyway. In it, Chief Administrative Judge Regina Stephens called Ortiz' actions "distasteful and unprofessional," and concluded that Ortiz's "work performance is affected" by her disagreements with the current executive orders and direction of EEOC leadership. The notice also alleged that media circulation of Ortiz's emails had "affected the reputation and credibility of the Agency." It cited an Associated Press article that quoted Ortiz saying she stood by her email statements as evidence that her behavior would not change with "rehabilitation." In a Wednesday phone interview with The Associated Press, Ortiz said the news of her termination is "very sad," although not surprising. "I think the agency has now become something that, I don't know if I'd even really want to work there anymore. They've lost their way," she said. Lucas defended her decision to drop lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee last week. She acknowledged that transgender workers are protected under civil rights laws but said her agency is not independent and must comply with presidential orders. Ortiz said she traveled from New York to Washington "on my own dime, on my own time" to attend the hearing. "I needed to be there," she said, adding that she left thank-you notes for Senators who "put Andrea Lucas' feet to the fire." Ortiz said she isn't sure what comes next for her, only that it will involve fighting for civil rights. And in the short-term, picking up more volunteer dog walking shifts. "I will keep fighting for the LGBTQ community in whatever way I can," she told AP. She added: "It takes courage to take a stand, and be willing to be fired, and lose a six-figure job, and health insurance, and the prestige of the title of 'judge,' but I think it'll also serve an example to future lawyers and young lawyers out there that a job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values."
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE No nation should dictate who can and cannot have the bomb - Peter Hitchens attacks America's nuclear hypocrisy on new Mail podcast
Atomic powers like the US employ a lot of 'bilge' to justify their nuclear arsenals while condemning other nations who seek the same deterrent, Peter Hitchens tells Sarah Vine on the latest episode of the Mail's Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast. The acclaimed broadcaster argued that misinformation about the Manhattan Project and America's initial motivations for pursuing an atomic bomb provides an all-too-convenient explanation for why some nations are allowed nukes and others are not. While not a 'fantasist' who believes global nuclear disarmament is possible, Hitchens said that the disputes over who can possess nuclear weapons raise questions about whether any country should have access to them. Hitchens said: 'It has been very interesting to watch the US try to explain why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, whereas it should. 'Apparently, no one cares that Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have them. You have to wonder what the logic is behind saying who can and cannot have them, apart from who's already got them, and who's biggest. 'We have an elaborate justification for nuclear weapons in our minds. During the Cold War, I was a fairly strong Nato enthusiast because it seemed logical that it was ridiculous for us to give up ours while allowing the USSR to keep theirs. Peter Hitchens: 'The argument that we dropped the bomb on Japan, and that's why they surrendered - is certainly not true.' Listen here 'But since then, it has been nagging at me – should they exist at all? Should any country be allowed to have them?' Hitchens said much of the justification for nuclear weapons stems from the end of the Second World War – specifically the perceived success of the strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to Japan's surrender. He explained: 'There is a wonderful museum at Los Alamos in New Mexico, where the bomb was originally developed – it has this tremendous display inside, which made the same argument over and over again. 'The argument is the bomb saved possibly millions of lives in 1945. That we dropped the bomb on Japan, and they surrendered. The trouble is, it's certainly not true. 'It was Stalin's decision to invade Manchuria that forced a surrender. The Japanese were terrified of a Russian revenge for everything they had done to them since 1904. 'The other justification for developing the bomb was that Hitler would get it first – Nazi scientists were nowhere near a nuclear weapon. It's complete fantasy. 'The West has dodged a big moral question with these justifications. In which case, why do we have it at all?' The ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East prove that nuclear weapons don't deter conflict as was once assumed, Hitchens contended. He added that nuclear weapons actually enable lower-level conflicts by creating a framework where conventional wars can rage without escalating to total destruction, leaving thousands dead. 'So-called conventional weapons are now of such horrifying power,' Hitchens began. 'Look at these Bunker Busters – my point being that nuclear weapons, rather than preventing war, have increasingly permitted lower-level conflicts to take place. 'Who would have thought that a war involving the Russian army could take place in Europe after the invention of nuclear weapons? Yet, here we are.' Speaking specifically about Iran, Hitchens reminded listeners that Israel had acted dishonestly with its own nuclear programme in the 1960s. He said: 'The reason we're in this mess in the Middle East is because the Israelis don't trust the Iranians, the Iranians don't trust the Israelis and the Americans certainly don't trust the Iranians. 'But, when the Israelis built their bomb – they weren't very public about it themselves. It only came out because an Israeli official got drunk at a cocktail party and blabbed to an American diplomat.'
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Pete Hegseth attacks media over reporting of US strikes in Iran
The United States defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has launched an attack on the media over their reporting of the US strikes in Iran. Hegseth accused the media of 'spinning' leaked information and told the media about the stories he thinks they should be writing - including 'how hard it is to fly a plane for 36 hours'
