Supermen and dancing devils: Photos of the day
The country's air defence system intercepts missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP
A block of flats lies in ruins after an Iranian missile strike Photograph: Chen Kalifa/Reuters
A painting and personal belongings lie covered in dust and shards of glass in a home struck by an Iranian missile Photograph: Oded Balilty/AP
Shia Muslim clerics shout slogans during a rally at the Shatt al-Arab seaside promenade in the southern Iraqi city in protest at Israel's strikes on Iran Photograph: Hussein Faleh/AFP/Getty Images
A mourner weeps during the funeral of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire yesterday, while they sought food aid in northern Gaza Photograph: Mahmoud Issa/Reuters
Palestinians queue after the arrival of a truck distributing water. Most of the population is experiencing serious water shortages after the destruction of water wells and tanks Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images
Protesters demand the resignation of the Thai prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, near Government House in Bangkok. The protest follows the leak of a call between Paetongtarn and the former Cambodian premier Hun Sen, regarding the two countries' border dispute Photograph: Rungroj Yongrit/EPA
Representative Angie Craig embraces a mourner at a candlelight vigil for the Minnesota state Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at the State Capitol Photograph: Nikolas Liepins/AP
Police remove protesters during a visit by the interior minister at Gare du Nord as the country launches a two-day crackdown in stations, trains and buses against 'illegal immigration'. About 4,000 officers will be mobilised on 18-19 June during the nationwide checks Photograph: Martin Lelievre/AFP/Getty Images
Workers from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees union protest at Bowen Hills Photograph: Darren England/AAP
A teacher guides her young charges during an earthquake drill at a school in Metro Manila Photograph: Rolex dela Peña/EPA
Christians take part in the traditional Bavarian Corpus Christi boat procession on Lake Staffelsee, near Murnau Photograph: Angelika Warmuth/Reuters
A member of the Brotherhood of the Diablos Danzantes de Chuao (Dancing Devils of Chuao) arranges his mask during the Corpus Christi festival in Aragua state Photograph: Maxwell Briceno/Reuters
Superman fans gather during the Superman Look Up fan event in Manila. The Superman movie world tour starts in the Philippines, with the film scheduled for international release on 9 July Photograph: Francis R Malasig/EPA
A woman poses for a picture next to the character Mokoko as she visits Pop Mart's theme park Pop Land Photograph: Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images
Racegoers queue to enter Royal Ascot
Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Insight: How Trump, a self-proclaimed "peacemaker," embraced Israel's campaign against Iran
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic. "We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack," Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran. "The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don't have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace." That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time. But behind the scenes, the president already knew an attack on Iran could be imminent - and that there might be little he could do to stop it, according to two U.S. officials. By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran's nuclear program, the officials said. And the U.S. had already diverted thousands of defensive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source. The Pentagon declined to comment for this story. This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump's decision to throw his support behind Israel's bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action - and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control. While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker - dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord - he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. And U.S. intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two U.S. officials. While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump's more hawkish allies ever got him to a "yes" to Israel's plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a "no," according to two senior U.S. officials and a senior Israeli source. That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action. Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy. He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel "to fight it out," or he can enter the war with U.S. airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region. Trump "let it (the Israeli attack) happen," said Miller. "He got on the tiger and he's riding it." The White House, the Israeli prime minister's office and Iran's delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected. One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April. During a closed door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia's defense minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump's offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel. Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington's behest, nor whether Iran's leaders took that message seriously. With hindsight, they should have. The Israel Defense Forces and the head of U.S. Central Command, General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran's missile buildup and nuclear program and steps that could be required to defend U.S. troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a U.S. official and senior Israeli official. Meanwhile, the U.S. was funneling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defensive missiles originally meant for Ukraine were diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source. The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend U.S. interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said. In the opening months of Trump's term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran's facilities, according to sources. While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran. He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' division responsible for its international operations. The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, U.S. prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies. Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office. On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump's Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests. On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost. Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace. "My proudest legacy," he said during his inauguration address, "will be that of a peacemaker and unifier." Ultimately, no U.S. official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president. One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down. Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel's attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran. The senior U.S. official said another dynamic was at play: As U.S. intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without U.S. support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the U.S. was opposing a longtime ally. Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official. By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 - one of many phone calls in recent days - his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one U.S. and one Israeli official. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the U.S. official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel's plans. By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel's plans were a go. That day, Reuters reported that the U.S. was preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy amid fears of reprisals from Iran following an imminent attack. The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent. That evening, Israel launched its overnight barrage, an attack that almost immediately escalated into an air war. Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled "JFK room," part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby. On the menu, per one official: stone crabs from a local restaurant. The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two U.S. officials. Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump's Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war. Seven days on, the U.S. intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with U.S. intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report. A significant blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear program. Only the U.S. has that capability. Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States. As of Thursday, his intentions were still unclear.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
How close is Iran to actually building a nuclear bomb?
One key issue underlying the debate over whether to attack Iran in Tel Aviv, Washington and beyond is the long-running question of how determined the regime is to actually build a nuclear weapon, and when it could do so if it chose to. For well over a decade most western intelligence services have held two paradoxical but not contradictory positions on Iran's nuclear programme. The first is that Iran, as a result of a nuclear agreement with European powers in 2003, had formally halted its nuclear weapons programme, and has not since made an actual attempt to build a nuclear weapon. The second is that it has continued work on enriching uranium and other potential components of a nuclear weapons programme, sometimes deliberately misleading the recognised nuclear monitor, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, in doing so. That has led, over the years, to regular reports, resulting from some new revealed advance in the programme, that Iran is 'a matter of months' away from building a bomb. That refers to an assessment of how long it might take for Iran to succeed, if it did actually decide to build a bomb. It had not changed much in recent years, at least since Iran began installing high-speed centrifuges, the devices that enrich uranium, in 2013. But in the past year those reports have surfaced again. Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of national intelligence, who has a record of opposing military intervention in the Middle East, reiterated the formal position to the US Senate select committee on intelligence in March. 'The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003,' she said. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and, below, Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of national intelligence OFFICE OF THE SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN/GETTY IMAGES Nevertheless, in the past five years, Iran's nuclear advances have changed in their nature in key aspects. The most important is that it has enriched uranium in significant quantities to a much higher degree of purity than it has ever done before, certainly before the Obama-era nuclear deal of 2015. That limited enrichment to 3.67 per cent purity — the level needed for generating nuclear power. Previously, it had reached 20 per cent, the level required for certain medical uses. As part of the deal, Iran would be allowed to continue to enrich to 3.67 per cent, but not beyond, and be supplied with medical-use enriched uranium from abroad. Since 2020, once it became clear that the deal, which Trump tore up in 2018, would not be restored, the regime began to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, well beyond the level needed for any peaceful use. Weapons-grade uranium is of 90 per cent purity, not a difficult extra step. As of May this year, it had enough 60 per cent-enriched uranium for 233kg of weapons-grade uranium — which could make nine 25kg weapons, according to an analysis of IAEA assessments by the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis). That extra enrichment would take about three weeks to achieve. 'Breaking out in both Fordow and the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, the two facilities together could produce enough WGU (weapons grade uranium) for 11 nuclear weapons in the first month, enough for 15 nuclear weapons by the end of the second month, 19 by the end of the third month, 21 by the end of the fourth month, and 22 by the end of the fifth month,' Isis said. EPA Iranian commentators have explained that this higher enrichment was done purely as a negotiating tactic, to put pressure on the United States to restore a nuclear deal. If so, it was a dangerous bluff. Whether that is true or not, obtaining weapons-grade uranium is just one component of a nuclear weapons programme. Others include turning 90 per cent enriched uranium from a gaseous state to a metallic form that can be fashioned into a warhead; designing the warhead; attaching it to a missile; and creating the trigger mechanisms to detonate it. That is where Iran is said to be still many months or more than a year away from building a bomb — and according to the published US intelligence report not making a co-ordinated effort to do so. Netanyahu reportedly presented Israel's latest intelligence on Iran's trigger-mechanism advances to President Trump last month, in particular a 'multi-point initiation system', according to the Wall Street Journal. It is also where the most controversial aspects of Israel's decision to bomb Iran may be found to be, as it is examined with the benefit of hindsight. According to reports in Israeli media — clearly briefed by the Israeli military or intelligence apparatus — Iran was in fact making significant strides 'up to the point of no return', as the Israel Defence Forces put it in a statement. The precise details, though, are murky. Israeli intelligence claimed that Iran was indeed working on a trigger mechanism, and also that it was modifying its standard missiles to take nuclear warheads. Iran was 'working to secretly develop all components needed for developing a nuclear weapon,' the IDF said. According to the fuller media reports, the Taleghan 2 installation at Parchin, a recognised Iranian missile development site near Tehran, had conducted 'detonation experiments'. One problem with this analysis is that the Israelis had already bombed Taleghan 2, in November 2024. Israeli reports of recent developments are more vague — saying that weaponisation efforts had taken place 'in recent days'. The other problem is that there were competing assessments of what Iran might have been doing in Parchin. The US intelligence assessments did, however, change to reflect its belief that Iran had 'undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so'. Netanyahu reportedly presented Israel's latest intelligence on Iran's trigger-mechanism advances to Trump last month. Trump's intelligence advisers still concluded, however, that this represented only research and not an active decision to build a bomb. It is agreed by intelligence agencies and the IAEA that Iran's refusal to fully comply with inspections and secrecy about some aspects of its nuclear-related work leaves much room for concern. The IAEA report concluded: 'While safeguarded enrichment activities are not forbidden in and of themselves, the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon State in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 per cent remains a matter of serious concern, which has drawn international attention given the potential proliferation implications.' That does not, however, reflect a qualitative change in the assessment of the Iranian programme from a year ago, when Trump was campaigning. The change is to the speed with which Iran has been building up its stocks. Trump said, in a typically unorthodox intervention, that he was choosing to disregard Gabbard's statement on behalf of the US intelligence community. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having them,' he said on Tuesday. In terms of the speed of Iran's development, even Netanyahu does not differ much from other estimates. Iran 'would achieve a test device, and possibly an initial device, within months, and certainly less than a year', he said in a Fox News interview. No one doubts that Iran is developing the technical ability to build a bomb, only whether the decision has been taken to proceed — and what that decision would look like.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Here's what happens next if Trump launches his attack plan on Iran: report
President Donald Trump continues to weigh up the prospect of joining Israel's attack on Iran in an apparent attempt to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon. Israel commenced its attack, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, six days ago, killing several of Tehran's top military leaders in its first wave of airstrikes and going on to hit 1,100 targets. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially denied any U.S. involvement, with the president claiming to have advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against taking military action, preferring to continue negotiations with Iran in neutral Oman. But since then, Trump has adopted much more mixed messaging, privately agreeing on a potential plan of attack on Tuesday and telling reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Wednesday: 'I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do… The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.' As the world awaits his decision, seven experts surveyed by Politico have given their verdicts on what they think might happen next. Former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker argued that America joining in Israel's operation would leave Iran with two choices: return to the negotiating table or retaliate in kind. The latter course might mean attacks on U.S. military and diplomatic targets in the region, blocking the Straits of Hormuz to drive up global oil prices, or attacking the energy infrastructure of the Arab Gulf. He pointed out that aerial bombardment alone would not be enough to conclusively curtail Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions because 'neither Israel nor the U.S. can kill all the nuclear scientists.' Crocker states that only an agreement to abandon uranium achievement could achieve that aim without broadening the conflict across the Middle East. For ex-U.S. special envoy Dennis Ross, much would depend on how precisely Washington went about bombing Iran. Targeting specific sites like the Fordo enrichment plant, situated in a mountain near Qum, might be enough to convince Iran to lower its arms and agree to further talks. However, a much broader assault, 'maybe with a regime-change objective in mind,' could leave Iran's leaders feeling 'they have little to lose and their best bet is to show they can make us pay a heavy price.' Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer observed that, so far, Iran has 'displayed significant restraint' and agreed with Ross that a strike on Fordo alone might convince it to back down militarily. He also warned about the possibility of Iran's leadership no longer staying 'coordinated' under pressure, which could see 'rogue military actors' break ranks and escalate the situation. 'It's much easier to start wars than to end them,' he observed. Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that Iran is not well-positioned to respond militarily at present. Still, American airstrikes would serve as effective confirmation to the country's leaders that Washington was involved in Israel's attack all along. 'Clerical oligarchs have long memories,' he warned, pointing to the prospect of revenge served cold in the future, with American embassies, tourists and military bases all potential targets. Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago said he would expect the U.S. military to target Fordo and another nuclear site, Natanz, as their first order of business, but that going after further 'surprise' targets would also be a likely strategy. Foreign affairs analyst Robin Wright argued that the tension between Israel and Iran can never be resolved through armed conflict, insisting that only diplomacy can secure a lasting peace and only Washington has the power and influence to bring about that outcome. Wright also expressed concern that, so far, neither Israel nor the U.S. have expressed any long-term goals regarding Iran, with much of the language surrounding the assault ambiguous, leaving the prospect of a dangerous power vacuum being allowed to open up if they assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei, as Trump has threatened, without a clear 'end game' in sight. Arash Azizi, a journalist with The Atlantic, meanwhile, expressed confidence that Iran will ultimately choose the path of diplomacy, rather than bloodshed. 'This will fit both with the regime's rationale of wanting to preserve itself and the overwhelming sentiments on the Iranian street,' he said.
