At least 71 killed in Israel's attack on Tehran's Evin prison, Iran says
At least 71 people were killed in Israel's attack on Monday on Tehran's Evin prison, a notorious facility where many political activists have been held, Iran's judiciary said.
Spokesman Asghar Jahangir posted on the office's official Mizan news agency website on Sunday that those killed included staff, soldiers, prisoners and members of visiting families.
The agency had earlier confirmed that the top prosecutor at the prison had been killed in the strike.
It said Ali Ghanaatkar, whose prosecution of dissidents led to widespread criticism by human rights groups, would be buried at a shrine in Qom.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kneecap At Glastonbury: What Happened When The Band Finally Performed?
After weeks of controversy, Kneecap delivered one of the stand-out sets at Glastonbury this weekend. For the last few weeks, Kneecap have maintained that they've been the victims of a 'witch-hunt' and 'smear campaign' ever since their set at the Coachella music festival in April, where they expressed solidarity with Palestine amid the current conflict in the Middle East. At the time, the band led the crowd in a chant of 'free Palestine' and projected the message 'fuck Israel' onto the screens behind them. Days after Coachella, it was first reported that counter-terrorism officers were assessing resurfaced videos recorded months earlier, one of which reportedly saw the group declaring 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in London. It was subsequently confirmed that rapper Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh – better known to fans of the group by his stage name Mo Chara – had been charged with a terror offence, for allegedly brandishing the flag of the proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah, after being handed the flag at a Kneecap show in London in November 2024. Responding to Ó hAnnaidh being charged with a terror offence, Kneecap said: 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves. This is political policing. This is a carnival of distraction. We are not the story. Genocide is.' They also insisted: 'Let us be unequivocal. We do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah. We condemn all attacks on civilians, always. It is never okay.' In the lead-up to Glastonbury, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer recently called for Kneecap to be dropped from the line-up in light of Ó hAnnaidh's terror charge, suggesting that the band remaining on the line-up was not 'appropriate'. Their show went ahead on Saturday afternoon as planned (albeit without being live-streamed, although an 'edited' version was subsequently made available to stream on BBC iPlayer). Kneecap's set opened with a montage of TV reports about the controversies they've been at the centre of in recent history, with Ó hAnnaidh describing himself as a 'free man' at the beginning of the show, having been released on unconditional bail following his first court appearance earlier this month. We made a wee intro video for Glasto - crowd was so big a good few heads couldn't see it so here yis go x 🍿 — KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) June 28, 2025 During the 45-minute set, the band accused Israel of committing genocide, and led the crowd once again in chants of 'free Palestine', as well as 'free Mo Chara', in light of what bandmate Móglaí Bap described as a 'trumped up terrorism charge' that was 'not the first time there was a miscarriage of justice for an Irish person in the British justice system'. Referring to the sea of Palestinian flags in the audience, Mo Chara observed that the 'BBC editor is going to have some job'. The group also turned their attention to the prime minister, leading the crowd in a chant of 'fuck Keir Starmer'. Both the 'BBC editor' quip and the chant about Starmer have been retained in the BBC iPlayer version of Kneecap's set, which seemingly only censored some of the group's lyrics rather than their on-stage comments. Kneecap leads a 'F—- Keir Starmer'chant during the group's #Glastonbury set. — Variety (@Variety) June 28, 2025 The BBC previously faced backlash over their decision not to air Kneecap's set live, with one fan in the Glastonbury crowd, named Helen, live-streaming it on TikTok, acquiring more than one-and-a-half million likes in the process. Since then, the group wrote back: 'Helen, you're a legend! Tickets to any show – just give me a shout!' Before the performance, it was reported that people were being denied access to the West Holts stage as Kneecap's set was proving so popular with Glastonbury attendees. While the BBC chose not to live-stream Kneecap's set, they did show Bob Vylan's performance live on iPlayer, which wound up creating yet more controversy when the punk rap duo led the crowd in a chant of 'death to the IDF', referring to Israel's national army, which local police have now said they are investigating. Kneecap Reflect On Incident That Led To Band Member Being Charged With Terror Offence Glastonbury Organiser Breaks Silence On Controversy Over Kneecap's Spot On This Year's Line-Up Kneecap Hit Back After Keir Starmer Says They Should Be Pulled From Glastonbury Line-Up
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why Trump won't be the one to name the war in Iran
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump rejects new claims Iran's nuke program survived: 'Whole place was destroyed'
Iran's nuclear program was severely hit by U.S. bomb strikes but did not face "total damage" and the program could be up and running again within months, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog chief said Sunday. President Donald Trump had a different take on the results of the strikes at the nuclear progam's primary site, telling Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that "it's just thousands of tons of rock in that room right now. The whole place was destroyed." However, the Washington Post reported Sunday that the U.S. has intercepted communication between senior Iranian officials remarking that the attack was less devastating than had been expected. The Post cites four people familiar with the classified intelligence circulating within the U.S. government. And the Tehran Times reported that "the core of Iran's nuclear program remains operational." Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the U.N.-sponsored International Atomic Energy Agency, said his agency was not making military evaluations but was using "logic" in determining that Iran's nuclear program could be up and running fairly soon. "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi said on CBS News' "Face the Nation." "But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there." Status of Iran nukes: Few thought airstrikes could 'obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did. Grossi said he expects Iran will continue with a nuclear program, "the contours of which are still to be seen" and will hopefully be part of negotiations. Again, Trump disagreed. "It was obliterated like nobody's ever seen before, and that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions at least for a period of time," Trump said. "The last thing they want do right now is think about nuclear. They have to put themselves back into condition and shape." Grossi acknowledged that some of the uranium already enriched by Iranian scientists could have been destroyed as part of the attack. But some could have been moved, he said. Trump had a different opinion again, telling Fox News that moving the uranium is "very hard to do, very dangerous to do, it's very heavy." Iran didn't believe the U.S. would actually try to bomb nuclear sites and "didn't know we were coming," Trump said. Grossi described Iran as a "very sophisticated country" in terms of nuclear technology. "You cannot disinvent this," Grossi said. "You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have." That should work as an incentive to reach an agreement, Grossi said. And the agreement should include an inspection system "that will give everybody ... the assurances that we can, we can definitely turn the page." Iran will remain firm in its demand that talks must begin with an explicit recognition of its sovereign right to enrich uranium on its own soil, the Tehran Times reported. Trump was adamant that Iran would not develp nuclear weapons under his watch. "Iran cannot have nuclear weapons," he said in explaining his reasons for bombing the sites. "They wanted this for years and they were weeks away from getting it." Trump ordered the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities − Operation Midnight Hammer − effectively joining a war that Israel started on June 13 when it began bombing Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Israel said it helped the U.S. coordinate and plan the strikes. Trump said all three sites were "totally obliterated." A Pentagon assessment was less definitive, and Iran says its nuclear program will hardly skip a beat. The actual damage and the impact on Iran's program could become more clear in coming days. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump rejects claim Iran could enrich uranium in 'a matter of months'
