Nearly 50 Vietnamese evacuated from Israel
Hanoi: Nearly 50 Vietnamese citizens have been evacuated from the conflict zone in Israel to Egypt, the state media reported on Wednesday.
Several evacuees have already returned to Vietnam, while others are completing necessary procedures to repatriate as soon as possible, the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said.
The evacuation was carried out through coordinated efforts by the Vietnamese embassies in Israel and Egypt, Vietnam News Agency reported.
The Vietnamese Embassy in Israel continues to advise citizens remaining in the conflict area to stay calm, maintain regular contact with the embassy, and strictly follow guidance and warnings issued by local authorities, MOFA and the embassy, Xinhua news agency reported.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed US President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Guterres urges Israel and Iran to fully respect the ceasefire and to stop fighting, noting that the people of the two countries have already suffered too much, said Stephane Dujarric, Guterres' spokesman.
"The secretary-general hopes that this ceasefire can be replicated in the other conflicts in the region," said the spokesman on Tuesday.
Earlier on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump declared that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel has officially taken effect, urging both sides to maintain restraint.
"THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!" Trump posted on social media platform Truth Social.
The announcement came amid escalating violence in the Middle East, but President Trump's declaration appeared to catch both parties off guard. The ceasefire claim was quickly contradicted by Iran, which asserted it had not received any formal proposal from Washington and had not agreed to a bilateral ceasefire.
Earlier in the day, President Trump wrote, "Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, 'Peace'! I knew the time was NOW. The World, and the Middle East, are the real winners!"
"Both Nations will see tremendous love, peace and prosperity in their futures. They have so much to gain, and yet, so much to lose if they stray from the road of righteousness and truth. The future for Israel & Iran is unlimited, & filled with great promise. God bless you both!" he added.
Earlier, Iran announced a unilateral halt to its military operations against Israel, effective 4 a.m. local time, but made it clear that the pause was conditional, based entirely on whether Israel would stop its own airstrikes and military actions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
32 minutes ago
- NDTV
Netanyahu Planned Iran Strike Months Before Bringing In Trump: Report
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already set the country on a warpath with Iran months before his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump, The Washington Post has reported citing Israeli and US officials. The report claims that after Israel dismantled Iran's air defences and severely weakened its proxy Hezbollah in October last year, Netanyahu issued a general order to prepare for a strike. Israeli intelligence began compiling lists of nuclear scientists and military commanders for targeted killings, while the air force launched operations to neutralise air defence systems across Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. By March this year, Israeli officials had already decided to strike Iran by June, with or without US involvement, citing concerns that Tehran would soon rebuild its air defences, sources said. This decision reportedly came weeks before Netanyahu met Trump on April 7. "It is true there was no better time: Israelis have never been more well-practised, and Iran and their proxies have never been weaker," said an Israeli official. "But that's not enough for us to operate. The reason we operated is necessity and understanding there is no alternative." The June 13 strike was not pushed by fresh intelligence suggesting an imminent Iranian breakout toward a nuclear weapon, but rather by a strategic opportunity to cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure while it was vulnerable. In recent interviews, Netanyahu said he made the "difficult" decision months earlier but finalised the timing just two weeks before the attack. "Those were my instructions. We're going after the scientists, take them out," Netanyahu said on Israeli TV. Israel's intelligence services spent years tracking the scientists, with Mossad running a covert campaign that involved smuggling kamikaze drones and missile launchers into Iran. The assassination campaign and airstrikes that followed are said to have killed at least 10 top scientists and damaged key elements of Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. While Israeli officials believed Iranian scientists were quietly resuming work on weaponisation, US intelligence, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, maintained that Iran's leadership had not ordered a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, dismissed that assessment, telling reporters he believed Iran was "very close" to acquiring one. While the Israeli security establishment largely backed the decision as a "preventive strike", some officials questioned the wisdom of launching an attack while diplomatic talks led by Trump's envoy were ongoing. "We should have given the political route a chance," said Danny Citrinowicz, a former senior Israeli intelligence official. "We got operational achievements, but the risks are enormous." Netanyahu has for over 30 years maintained that Iran's nuclear ambitions warrant military intervention. "All the scientists who were sneaking around," said a close adviser to Netanyahu, "most of them are now sneaking around in hell."
The Hindu
35 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rupee falls 2 paise to close at 86.07 against U.S. dollar
The rupee gave up its gains and settled for the day lower by 2 paise at 86.07 (provisional) against the US dollar on Wednesday, on recovery in global crude oil prices and the U.S. Dollar index. A strong show in the domestic equity markets prevented steep losses in the local unit, forex traders said. At the interbank foreign exchange, the rupee opened at 86.00 against the U.S. dollar and traded in the range of 85.79-86.14 before settling at 86.07 (provisional), down 2 paise from its previous close. Rupee opened in the positive on a surge in domestic markets and improved global risk sentiments. Ceasefire between Israel and Iran has led to rise in risk appetite. The local unit had logged its steepest single-day gain in nearly five years on Tuesday to end 73 paise higher at 86.05 against the greenback. "The rupee made a high of 85.79 before oil companies stepped in and took it lower to 86.13 with the market still sceptical of the Iran-Israel ceasefire," Anil Kumar Bhansali, Head of Treasury and Executive Director, Finrex Treasury Advisors LLP, said. "We await the current account data from the RBI to gauge how it performed during 2024-25, while the IIP data is also due to be announced today (Wednesday)," he said, adding that the rupee is expected in the range of 85.75-86.50 on Thursday. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, rose 1.09 per cent to USD 67.87 per barrel in futures trade after US President Donald Trump claimed to have brokered a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. The dollar index, which gauges the greenback's strength against a basket of six currencies, was trading up 0.24 per cent at 98.09. Meanwhile, in the domestic equity market, Sensex jumped 700.40 points to settle at 82,755.51, while Nifty surged 200.40 points to 25,244.75. Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) offloaded equities worth Rs 5,266.01 crore on a net basis on Tuesday, according to exchange data.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
Despite bombs, backlash: Why Iran's nuclear programme matters to it
A preliminary US intelligence report indicates Iran's nuclear programme could resume within one to two months despite weekend strikes on sites like Fordow and Natanz. Trump insists the facilities were 'obliterated', but analysts say satellite imagery cannot fully reveal underground damage. Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment dates to 1957 and reflects its enduring quest for independence read more Members of the Iranian Parliament participate in a vote of trust for the cabinet of President Masoud Pezeshkian at the parliament in Tehran, Iran, August 21, 2024. File Image/WANA via Reuters Targeted airstrikes by the United States and Israel over the weekend aimed to neutralise Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. While senior US officials and US President Donald Trump have declared the operation a strategic success, conflicting assessments from the American intelligence community and historical context suggest a far more nuanced picture. Did the US strikes achieve their objective? According to sources familiar with a preliminary US intelligence assessment, the American strikes on key nuclear sites in Iran — including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — have caused damage that might delay the programme by only a few months. Three individuals with access to the classified findings indicated to Reuters that the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which produced the initial report, assessed that Iran could resume uranium enrichment activities within as little as one to two months. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These estimates stand in stark contrast to statements from the Trump administration. While addressing reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump acknowledged the ambiguity in the intelligence — 'The intelligence was … very inconclusive' — but asserted, 'I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration.' He went further to claim, 'Iran's nuclear deal had been set back basically decades, because I don't think they'll ever do it again.' This position was echoed by White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, who responded to reports about the assessment by stating: 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Despite these pronouncements, officials involved in the intelligence review have pointed out that the report includes several uncertainties, conditions and is expected to evolve as more data becomes available. A US official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, confirmed that even now, Washington does not fully grasp the scale of the impact on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Evaluating the destruction of highly fortified sites like Fordow, located deep underground, remains technically difficult, especially if assessments rely on satellite imagery. A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran, January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters The DIA is also not the only agency responsible for the damage assessment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What if Iran had a bomb? Debates about Iran's nuclear capabilities inevitably raise the question: what happens if Tehran crosses the threshold and becomes a nuclear-armed state? Analysts hold divergent views — ranging from alarm over regional instability to cautious recognition of nuclear deterrence dynamics. While fears of Iran sharing nuclear material with non-state actors or extremist groups exist, history offers limited precedent for such scenarios. According to the Arms Control Association, only one known case — the Soviet Union's transfer of uranium-235 to China in the 1950s — ever involved a state transferring bomb-grade material to another actor. More relevant is how a nuclear Iran would reshape its security calculus in West Asia. Nuclear weapons, particularly for a country like Iran, are seen less as tools of aggression and more as strategic deterrents. These weapons could serve multiple deterrence objectives: dissuading conventional military aggression from regional non-nuclear states, forestalling nuclear threats from powers like Israel, India or Pakistan, and deterring interventions by external powers such as the United States or Russia. Analysts often reference the doctrine of 'proportional deterrence,' a concept initially crafted in Cold War-era France. It proposes that a relatively less capable nuclear state can still effectively deter stronger nuclear adversaries by threatening to destroy high-value targets, even while absorbing significant damage itself. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This form of second-strike capability ensures that any country contemplating an attack must reckon with irreversible consequences. This logic, however, cuts both ways. Iran itself remains vulnerable to deterrence by Israel's nuclear arsenal, and even its missile advancements may not necessarily indicate nuclear ambitions. Some experts argue that Iran's precision missile development could be aimed at bolstering conventional deterrence — targeting strategic sites in Israel or elsewhere without resorting to nuclear arms. While a nuclear-armed Iran would not automatically destabilise the region, the psychological and political implications would be profound. The sheer perception of a shift in power dynamics could alter regional alignments, defence planning and diplomatic engagements. Most crucially, however, it is unlikely that regional or global powers will allow Iran to acquire such a capability uncontested. How did Iran's nuclear programme come about? Iran's nuclear journey began not in defiance, but under American sponsorship. In 1957, the US and Iran launched a civil nuclear partnership as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' initiative. By the 1970s, under the pro-Western Shah, Iran was planning an ambitious programme that included building 23 nuclear reactors. Washington, including then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, raised no objection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's nuclear development was envisioned as a symbol of modernity and a tool for regional leadership, with plans to export electricity to neighbouring states. But the Iranian Revolution of 1979 transformed the landscape entirely. The ousting of the Shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic introduced a new political order driven by anti-imperialist rhetoric and religious ideology. Western fears of weaponisation of Iran's nuclear capabilities began almost immediately. Iran's insistence on the right to enrich uranium has been a flashpoint in every round of nuclear negotiations since. To many in Washington, this insistence is incomprehensible if Iran's aims are purely peaceful. As US Vice President JD Vance remarked: 'It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.' Iran, however, has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. It remains a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it has pledged not to develop a nuclear weapon. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued multiple fatwas condemning nuclear arms as 'un-Islamic.' So why is Iran's nuclear programme so important to it? The roots of Iran's nuclear intransigence run deep — far deeper than its centrifuges. One of the revolution's founding principles, as handwritten by Ayatollah Khomeini in a 1979 declaration, was 'independence.' This idea, grounded in a long history of colonial subjugation, remains central to the Islamic Republic's identity. Iran's experience of foreign domination stretches back centuries: squeezed between Russian and British imperialism in the 19th century, subjected to the exploitation of oil resources by British corporations in the 20th, and politically undermined by direct foreign interventions. In 1953, the US and UK orchestrated a coup to remove then-Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he sought national control over Iran's oil. This episode is widely regarded as a defining national trauma. Author and analyst Vali Nasr, in his work Iran's Grand Strategy, traces Iran's emphasis on nuclear self-sufficiency back to this legacy of external coercion. He argues that the drive for civil nuclear power and the right to enrich uranium is not just about energy — it is about reclaiming sovereignty. 'Before the revolution itself, before the hostage crisis or US sanctions, before the Iran-Iraq war or efforts to export the revolution… the future supreme religious guide and leader of Iran valued independence from foreign influence as equal to the enshrining principles of Islam in the state,' Nasr notes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khamenei himself once explained the significance of the revolution by stating, 'now all decisions are made in Tehran.' This desire for autonomy — manifested in Iran's refusal to rely on imported enriched uranium from countries like Russia — has consistently obstructed nuclear agreements. Yet, from Iran's perspective, conceding on enrichment would be tantamount to surrendering the very ideals upon which the Islamic Republic was built. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
