Trump says 'perfect' US strikes ended Iran-Israel war
Trump says US was close to achieving a deal in Gaza before Israel-Iran conflict broke out
Trump says Iran nuclear programme set back 'decades'
Israel says 'still early' to assess damage to Iran nuclear sites
Saudi Crown Prince welcomes Iran-Israel ceasefire in call with Pezeshkian
Iran says at least 610 killed since start of war with Israel
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
41 minutes ago
- The National
How Iran views a return to nuclear talks
Iran will only re-enter nuclear talks if the US offers clear aims and takes steps to rebuild trust – but will abide by a ceasefire if Israel does the same, current and former Iranian officials told T he National. Iran was surprised by the sudden Israeli attack on June 13, which came two days before a sixth round of talks was scheduled between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme. Those talks were cancelled, as Iran said negotiations with the US were meaningless while conflict raged with America's strongest ally in the Middle East. 'Regarding the talks, we need to see whether the opposing sides will enter in good faith or not,' an analyst in Tehran told The National. 'We never left the negotiating table, but with the treacherous behaviour of the US and Israel, there is no table left for negotiations.' The opposing side must prove that it is reliable this time with confidence-building measures. We will wait until there is good faith and a new initiative. Analyst close to Iran's government For months before Israel's attacks, the two sides had been negotiating in an attempt to reach a deal for limitations on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. With delegations led by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, they had completed five rounds of talks. But the discussions hit roadblocks over disagreements on Tehran's rights to enrich uranium, perhaps with limits. That prompted US support for Israel's operations, and eventually direct American strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Many in Iran believed Israel struck to derail the negotiations, which it had long opposed. Iran retaliated, carrying out its most intense direct missile strikes on Israel in history. It also carried out a more carefully calculated response to the US strikes by hitting a base in Qatar housing US troops on Monday night. Perturbed by US President Donald Trump 's support for Israel's military action while more diplomatic engagement was planned, Iranian officials are now seeking 'confidence-building measures' as part of any return to talks, the observers said. 'The opposing side must prove that it is reliable this time with confidence-building measures,' said the analyst, who is close to the Iranian government. 'We will wait until there is good faith and a new initiative.' Such measures could include the lifting of sanctions, or the release of frozen Iranian funds, the analyst said. 'It's giving concessions to Iran as an incentive for dialogue,' he added. It is not clear who might lead a new initiative to resume talks. Oman mediated previous rounds of nuclear talks and played a crucial role in achieving the Iran-Israel ceasefire that came into effect on Tuesday. Fragile ceasefire Iranians also want a stabilisation of that ceasefire before formulating plans for a possible return to negotiations. Israel has broken ceasefire agreements in Gaza and Lebanon, stoking pessimism over the longevity of the unwritten agreement with Tehran. In Lebanon, Israel has also accused Iran-backed Hezbollah of breaching a ceasefire agreement reached after a conflict last year. At the same time, Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure has been significantly damaged over 12 days of conflict. It seeks to abide by a ceasefire if Israel does not breach it. 'If the regime [Israel] does not take any aggressive actions, Iran will not react either,' a government official told The National. The prospect of negotiations with the US has become more challenging, the observers said. That is partly because the public mood in Iran has grown more hostile to engagement with the US. But it is also because Iran wants clear signals from Washington that it is serious about a return to diplomacy over military action. 'These days, discussions revolve around what Iran could realistically expect from US negotiations: lifting sanctions? Removing threats?' Sasan Karimi, a former deputy vice president for strategic affairs, told The National. 'I believe the United States must, once and for all, clearly and loudly articulate what Iran can expect from any talks.' Providing a clear US road map for diplomacy, or incentives for Iran to engage, will be politically difficult for Mr Trump. Iran hawks in Washington oppose any perceived concessions to Tehran. 'Trump has to ensure that these conditions are met: no enrichment, no reprocessing, no strategic missiles, and full nuclear dismantlement. And there should be no sanctions relief,' said Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank in Washington. While the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear sites from the Israeli and US strikes remains unclear, Iran also faces the challenge of a weakened relationship with the UN's nuclear watchdog. Iran's parliament on Wednesday approved a bill to suspend co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after Tehran accused the organisation of 'bias' in favour of Israel. The body had formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years a day before Israel struck Iran. Co-operation with the IAEA was a crucial part of a previous nuclear deal struck between Tehran and global powers in 2015 during the Obama administration, and refusal to allow its inspectors into Iran could be another roadblock in any future negotiations. Mr Trump withdrew from the previous deal in his first term. Talks resumed this year after the US leader claimed he could strike a better deal, but he never ruled out military action. In the previous rounds of nuclear talks, Iran accused the US of inconsistency in its positions. Iranian officials initially understood that the US was willing to allow some level of uranium enrichment, as long as Tehran did not use it to develop a nuclear weapon – a threshold it denies seeking. Later in the talks, the US position changed to a zero-enrichment limitation, leaving Iranian officials unclear of Mr Witkoff's remit and sceptical of the influence of those pushing for a ban on enrichment. 'Iran's firm responses have shown that it is the US that must take clear, confidence-building actions and statements to demonstrate it isn't approaching talks from a position of superiority, as if Iranians have never negotiated with the US in good faith, or won't do so again,' Mr Karimi said.
The National
41 minutes ago
- The National
Palestinians in Israel left scrambling for safety during war with Iran
The Iran strikes have exposed serious gaps in Israel's shelter system, leaving many Palestinian citizens and even foreigners struggling to find protection from incoming Iranian missiles. Activists and rights groups have said the Israeli government has not done enough to keep vulnerable communities and minorities safe by building enough safe spaces for them or ensuring that they are not being discriminatorily kept out in existing ones. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, prompting its retaliation. Hundreds of people were killed in Iran and dozens in Israel until a ceasefire was reached on Tuesday. But with Iran and Israel's unprecedented exchange of blows, the path has been paved for future wars, with what appears to be less protection for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Israeli media had reported instances of denied entry to shelters in Israeli-majority communities. Some journalists accused the police of not taking action against people who have been accused of closing the doors on Palestinians, despite it being considered illegal under Israeli law, which penalises offenders with a one-year prison sentence. Following this and other reports, Member of Knesset Offer Cassif said he contacted the Home Front Command, responsible for the defence of civilians, to inform them of these breaches. "This is an unacceptable, illegal, dangerous and racist phenomenon that mainly affects Arabs, foreigners and disadvantaged groups who already suffer from gaps in access and protection," he wrote on X. "This racism must be stopped immediately and the perpetrators brought to justice." Beyond anecdotal evidence, groups like Bikom Planning and Human Rights said 46 per cent of Arab-Israeli households lack access to protective shelters, such as a reinforced room or communal shelter, citing figures from the Israeli State Comptroller. In 60 per cent of Arab municipalities, there are "no public shelters whatsoever", said CEO of the Arab-Jewish Centre for Empowerment, Equality and Co-operation (AJEEC) Ilan Amit. No shelters Israel mandated building bomb shelters in buildings as part of its Civil Defence law of 1951. Since then, all homes, apartments and industrial buildings in areas governed by Israel have been required to have a safe room, space or shelter for people to seek safety from bombardment. Additionally, shelters can be found in public spaces, including theatres, schools, underground parking lots, malls and hospitals. There are also community shelters to accommodate people living in different neighbourhoods. But Bikom said building restrictions, like not issuing permits for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the government's minimal investment in urban planning and public work, have led to severe shortages in protective areas. "The lack of protective infrastructure in Arab localities directly results from the Israeli state's long-standing discriminatory policies in urban planning and spatial development," the group said. The National has reached out to Israeli authorities for a comment. Palestinian civilians struggled to find a place for shelter and safety in several areas. In Tamra, an Arab-majority town, four people were killed in Iranian strikes. Residents there had to rely on their own efforts to build shelters. The town's mayor Musa Abu Rumi said Tamra has no shelters put in place by the government. Instead, he had opened schools to people who did not feel safe sleeping at home. The threat of bombardment has been felt before by the town's civilians – namely, last year when Hezbollah fired rockets, wounding at least two people. The lack of government action remains "unaddressed", even after the town was hit, the Israeli Defence Institute (IDI) said in a report. In fact, swathes of Arab-majority areas like Rahat – the largest Arab local authority in Israel – and home to more than 80,000 residents does not have a single public shelter, whereas the Israeli community of Ofakim nearby which has half of that population, has "several dozen" public shelters, the IDI report said. Palestinian Bedouin Mr Amit also called for the integration of Arab localities into the government's emergency plans, particularly in places like Al Naqab (The Negev), where hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Bedouin live, many in makeshift homes and unrecognised villages. Israeli Comptroller figures state that not all schools in Al Naqab have protective areas, and the ones that are available cannot fit all the students. Fairuz, a Bedouin who lives in the village of Wadi Khazzan alongside approximately 100 members of her family in various makeshift homes, said the risks are very high. For the first few days of the Iranian strikes, Fairuz said some people went to the nearest Jewish Israeli town. "They tried to merge among the people – but eventually, many of them were kicked out." She and her family discovered a school nearby – a 10-minute drive from where she lives. "But with getting everybody out of the house and into the school, the whole process takes about 30 minutes. If there was a strike, it would have landed by then." Days later, she and her family devised a system. Every day after Isha (nightly) prayers, the last ones of the day, they would pack up their belongings including blankets, nappies for the babies, supplies for the women, clothes, food and other items, and head to the school for the night, when the strikes are usually fired, until the next morning. But even that shelter has got overcrowded the more people have discovered it. It is for this reason that Mr Amit called for the government to take more action towards all of its civilians, equally. In an editorial published by The Times of Israel, he called on the government of Israel to see the disparity in protection "not as a Bedouin issue, or even an Arab issue, but as an Israeli issue. As a human issue."
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Israel, Iran and the US are all stuck in traps of their own making
It was one of the most public, personalised and extraordinary schisms between the US and Israel, and certainly the first conducted on television and in real time. US President Donald Trump found himself decisively in over his head, swearing at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and – largely for politically necessary balance – at Iran's leadership, to maintain his ceasefire. On TV, then social media, and finally an angry telephone call. In a flurry of 20 minutes, Israel was compelled to call off a major air strike. As Israel sent aircraft streaking towards Iran in response to a lone missile that, as he noted, may well have been erroneously launched, Mr Trump instantly recognised that he was about to be played. He wasn't going to put up with it. The old dictum about 'no daylight' between American and Israeli positions just can't function with a US President as patrimonial as Mr Trump and an Israeli Prime Minister as prevaricating as Mr Netanyahu. Mr Netanyahu was compelled to hit a minor radar installation site instead. That's how a 48-hour whirlwind of real and phony attacks, theatrical and genuine threats, and an atmosphere of overall mayhem, saw Mr Trump flailing and frustrated. The US President found himself trapped between his characteristically self-serving rhetoric and realities, and between his goals and Mr Netanyahu's ongoing effort to lure the Americans into a protracted conflict with Iran that Mr Trump is still seeking to avoid. As the dust settles, it's unclear what was really accomplished by Israel's 'war of the cities' with Iran launched on June 13, with the important but hardly decisive American footnote last Saturday. Israel did manage to at least postpone what appeared to be promising US-Iranian talks, with an American proposal of Tehran joining a regional 'consortium' for nuclear energy production with key Arab countries as a potential workaround for the vexed problem of Iran's 'right to enrich'. The idea alarmed Israel sufficiently to unleash its barrage, and that, in turn, was successful enough to prompt Mr Trump to join the fray with a single action that was never intended to be the opening salvo of a protracted US bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear sites. All three parties now find themselves in traps of their own making. It's unclear how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear programme. But Tehran has taken some potent blows, including the devastation of its paramilitary leadership and a generation of top nuclear scientists. Tehran paid a heavy price for playing games with highly enriched uranium, as noted in a damning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and more broadly for reckless rhetoric about 'destroying' Israel and absurd slogans like 'death to America'. However, Israel has certainly not ensured that Iran will never become a nuclear power. On the contrary, it may have ensured that while Iran proceeds with greater caution, the war has only amplified the already evident lesson that adversarial countries that don't have a nuclear deterrent, like Iraq and Libya, are likely to face external attack while those that do, like North Korea, aren't. Iran has sought a nuclear deterrent since the Shah and that determination will undoubtedly have sharply increased, even among those implacably opposed to the current establishment. The Israelis may have thrown their best punch, leaving Iran bloodied and battered but more determined than ever to eventually become the second nuclear weapons power in the Middle East – Israel itself having long since introduced those weapons to the region. How Israel deals with this new reality, unless it finds a way to resume warfare despite Mr Trump's angry objections, remains to be seen. A satisfactory solution appears farther off than ever. Even Mr Trump, albeit clearly less than his Iranian and Israeli counterparts, has put himself in an unenviable corner without an obvious escape route. His administration is already tying itself into rhetorical contortions over his insistence that the three Iranian nuclear sites he struck were 'completely and totally obliterated', at least in terms of enrichment. Even at the time, it was obvious that he couldn't have been relying on any serious preliminary evaluation, and was simply engaging in his trademark 'truthful hyperbole', as he described his form of self-serving remarks in his ghost-written memoir, The Art of the Deal. Leaked reports from the Defence Intelligence Agency – based on actual preliminary assessments, including new surveillance footage, signals intelligence and very possibly human intelligence from inside Iran – suggest that, on the contrary, while the bunker-buster bomb attacks may have badly damaged entranceways to the Fordow mountainside network, they did not render the interior facilities non-functional or even hard-hit. They concluded that Iran's enrichment work there, and at other sites in question, will be disrupted for months, but hardly 'obliterated'. This is consistent with what one would expect from a strike that would have been only the opening salvo in existing US plans to actually obliterate that facility. These called for round-the-clock bunker-buster strikes over many days, if not weeks, before the tunnel network was collapsed on itself or rendered otherwise fully non-functional. That obviously wasn't going to happen from a handful of impacts, even with such powerful weapons. Israel, too, cannot fully know how much harm it has caused to Iran's nuclear research and development programme. Even Iranian officials are most probably still assessing the true extent. Israel was surely seeking to deliver a knockout blow to the programme, or rather to get Washington to do that for it. Neither seems to have occurred. So, less than two weeks after Israel launched its supposedly decisive war, we are effectively back to square one, albeit with Iran having absorbed significant and painful losses that will take energy, resources and time that the impoverished country can ill afford. Whether Mr Trump can get Iran back to the negotiating table with renewed seriousness remains to be seen, although it would clearly be in Tehran's interests to strike a deal with Washington even now. However, we may eventually look back at this conflict as the moment in which Israel ensured that it would have to live alongside a nuclear-armed Iran rather than having permanently eliminated the prospects for that.
