Israel and Iran hostilities enter fifth day
Israel and Iran hostilities enter fifth day
Smoke rises following a missile attack from Iran on the affluent city of Herzliya. Photo: Reuters
Israel and Iran exchanged missile fire for a fifth consecutive day on Tuesday, as US President Donald Trump abruptly left the G7 summit and warned Tehran residents to "immediately evacuate" amid rising fears of a wider conflict.
The Israeli military said it targeted multiple missile and UAV sites in western Iran, including surface-to-surface missile infrastructure, surface-to-air launchers and drone storage facilities, in a statement accompanied by black-and-white footage showing missile launchers exploding.
Shortly after, air raid sirens sounded in parts of Israel.
Loud booms were heard over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv as the Israeli army warned of incoming missiles launched from Iran.
Around 20 minutes later, the army said people could leave protected spaces.
Police said shrapnel fell in Tel Aviv, causing damage but no casualties.
The fire service said its teams were on the way to battle a blaze in the commercial hub.
Despite mounting calls to de-escalate, neither side has backed off from the missile blitz that began on Friday, when Israel launched an unprecedented aerial campaign targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities.
A new wave of Israeli strikes on Tehran – including a dramatic hit on state television's headquarters that the broadcaster said killed three people – prompted both sides to activate missile defence systems overnight.
Israel's army briefly urged citizens to seek shelter, amid growing fears of a regional war.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the US was deploying "additional capabilities" to the Middle East. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz left Southeast Asia on Monday, scrapping a planned Vietnam stop, amid reports it was heading to the region.
After calling for talks, Trump issued an extraordinary warning on his Truth Social platform: "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" He left the G7 in Canada early to return to Washington.
Later, he dismissed reports that he left to broker a ceasefire, lashing out at French President Emmanuel Macron.
"Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron... mistakenly said I left the G7... to work on a 'cease fire,'" Trump posted on Truth Social.
"Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire."
The escalation has derailed nuclear talks and stoked fears of broader conflict. Trump urged Iran to return to the negotiating table.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said a missile strike lightly damaged a building used by the American embassy in Tel Aviv. The State Department warned Americans not to travel to Israel.
At least 24 people have been killed in Israel and hundreds wounded, according to the prime minister's office.
Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians. It has not issued an updated toll since then.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was eliminating Iran's security leadership "one after the other".
"We are changing the face of the Middle East, and that can lead to radical changes inside Iran itself," he said.
A senior US official said Trump had intervened to prevent Israel from carrying out an assassination of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
But Netanyahu did not rule out the possibility when asked about the reports during an interview with ABC News.
"It's not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict," he said. (AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
23 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
As Israel pummels Iran, what are Tehran's options for retaliatory strikes against its foe?
As Israel pounds Iran with air strikes targeting military facilities and its nuclear sites, officials in Tehran have proposed a variety of steps the Islamic republic could take outside launching retaliatory missile barrages. Advertisement Those proposals mirror those previously floated by Iran in confrontations with either Israel or the United States in the last few decades. They included disrupting maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leaving the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and other attacks by militants. Here's a look at what those options could mean – both to Iran and the wider Middle East. Targeting the Strait of Hormuz The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20 per cent of all oil traded globally passes. The strait is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, which at its narrowest point is just 33km (21 miles) wide. The width of the shipping lane in either direction is only 3km (2 miles). Anything affecting it ripples through global energy markets, potentially raising the price of crude oil. That then trickles down to consumers through what they pay for petrol and other oil products. There has been a wave of attacks on ships attributed to Iran since 2019, following President Donald Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimposing crushing sanctions on Tehran. Advertisement US forces routinely travel through the strait, despite sometimes-tense encounters with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force answerable only to Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet conducts those operations, known as freedom of navigation missions, to ensure the waterway remains open to business. Iran views those passages as challenging its sovereignty – as if it operated off the coast of the US. Since the Israeli attacks began, Iranian officials have repeatedly raised the possibility of blocking the strait – which is likely to draw an immediate American response.
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Trump makes mockery of G7 at critical diplomatic juncture
When the world teeters on the brink of another full-scale regional war, diplomacy—however imperfect—becomes the thin thread that prevents catastrophe. It is precisely during these moments that multilateral institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) must function with unity, sobriety and respect for each other's contributions. Unfortunately, the latest summit in Canada revealed more fissures than cohesion, and not due to structural disagreement on trade, finance or even Ukraine. Rather, it was the unnecessarily sharp personal rebuke issued by US President Donald Trump against French President Emmanuel Macron that punctured the diplomatic atmosphere. At issue was Macron's assertion to reporters that Trump was leaving the G7 early to potentially broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. 'There is indeed an offer to meet and exchange,' Macron said, adding that the United States had 'assured they will find a ceasefire and since they can pressure Israel, things may change.' Whether borne of informed speculation or confidential briefings, Macron's tone was hopeful, hinting that the United States—despite its own political tumult—might bring its considerable leverage to bear in ending a volatile conflict in the Middle East. Trump, however, was quick to scoff at Macron's remarks, dismissing them as 'wrong,' and asserting that his abrupt departure from the G7 had nothing to do with any potential ceasefire. In a statement posted to his own platform, Social Truth, Trump ominously advised, 'Everyone should evacuate from Tehran'—a message that may have caused more confusion than clarity, not least for the citizens of Tehran and the diplomats working to contain hostilities. But Trump's derision goes far beyond a semantic quarrel. It points to a deeper pattern of undermining traditional allies, resisting the norms of collective diplomacy and reducing serious multilateral efforts to public theater. The G7, for all its shortcomings, has historically operated on a delicate balance of peer respect and strategic coordination. To have one of its most powerful members lash out against another, particularly when the latter is attempting to steer attention toward peace efforts, corrodes that balance. This is not the first time Trump has treated France—and by extension, Europe—as an adversary rather than a partner. In previous summits, he dismissed the importance of NATO, mocked French concerns over climate change, and refused to support multilateral trade mechanisms that form the bedrock of European economic stability. Yet what happened in Canada is different: it occurred not merely against the backdrop of a policy disagreement but amid the specter of regional war. Israel and Iran are currently in a perilous dance of escalation. With Israeli strikes reportedly targeting Iranian military sites and Iran retaliating via drone and missile launches, the region is careening toward a wider confrontation. A war that could suck in neighboring states, global energy markets and even non-regional actors like Russia and China. It is precisely in such moments that the G7 must act as a stabilizing force—not an arena of personal vendettas. To suggest that Macron was out of line for voicing what many suspected—that Trump's early exit may have been motivated by a secret diplomatic mission—is disingenuous. Even if Macron's remarks were premature, they reflected a yearning for progress, not a challenge to Trump's authority. The French president, after all, is a seasoned leader who understands the need for discretion but also recognizes the value of positive signaling. His comment was an opening, an invitation for diplomacy to flourish. Trump chose instead to shut that window with a tweet and a rebuke. Moreover, Trump's declaration that 'everyone should evacuate from Tehran' only adds to the confusion. What does it signal? An imminent strike? A covert operation gone awry? Or merely another instance of bluster designed to unnerve adversaries and allies alike? In the absence of clarity, the message contributes to anxiety, not resolution. For diplomats in the region, such ambiguity can be paralyzing. For ordinary citizens in Tehran, it may very well provoke panic. One must also question the wisdom of using a social media post to relay potential security warnings, rather than relying on established diplomatic channels. The State Department or the National Security Council is equipped to issue warnings with nuance and legal authority. When leaders bypass these institutions to score points or spread fear, the result is a governance vacuum. Beyond the immediate implications, this latest episode raises a larger concern about the erosion of diplomatic norms in the post-2020 world order. The G7 was once a forum for proactive global leadership: addressing financial crises, coordinating humanitarian relief, and charting climate policy. Today, it often appears more performative than practical, with headline-grabbing gestures replacing substantive commitments. Trump's consistent sidelining of allies, whether France, Germany, Canada, or Japan, has contributed to this decline. His transactional worldview—where friends are judged not by shared values but by personal loyalty—makes stable cooperation difficult. By treating Macron's olive branch as an insult, Trump not only insults France but signals to the rest of the G7 that independent thought will be met with disdain. This is a dangerous precedent. For when diplomacy becomes personalized and weaponized, its primary function—to reduce conflict through dialogue—evaporates. If leaders at the G7 cannot even agree on the tone of their own statements, let alone on a strategy for peace in the Middle East, then the institution is at risk of irrelevance. To be clear, Macron is not beyond critique. His own record on foreign policy has been mixed. But in this instance, his attempt to steer global attention toward a ceasefire should be viewed not as meddling, but as leadership. That Trump cannot—or will not—see this speaks volumes about his priorities. If President Trump is indeed in a position to facilitate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, then let him proceed. But undermining an ally who voices hope for that possibility serves no one—not the G7, not the Middle East and certainly not the credibility of the United States on the global stage. In diplomacy, perception matters as much as action. And at this critical moment, the perception is clear: Trump prefers deflection over dialogue, and derision over diplomacy. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Ruhanas Harun is professor at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, National Defense University Malaysia.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
‘A new China shock': von der Leyen revives hard line on Beijing at G7 summit
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has accused Beijing of deliberately creating a near-monopoly in the global supply of rare earth elements , then weaponising the world's reliance on those chains. Advertisement Addressing the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday, von der Leyen made a hawkish return to form, reversing a course of toned-down criticism of China spurred by the return of US President Donald Trump in January. In two separate speeches in the first two months of the year, she surprised many observers by talking about 'deepening trade and investment' with China. But with Trump in the room on Monday , von der Leyen took aim at China's policies, reviving some of the aggressive language she has used over recent years, and setting the stage for a showdown at the EU-China Summit in Beijing next month. 'On this point, Donald is right – there is a serious problem,' von der Leyen said at a round-table leaders' meeting. Advertisement 'But we strongly feel that the biggest challenges are not the trade between G7 partners. Rather, the sources of the biggest collective problem we have has its origins in the accession of China to the WTO in 2001.'
