Iran executes three prisoners accused of spying for Israel
The hangings happened in Urmia Prison in Iran's West Azerbaijan province, the country's most north-west province, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
IRNA said Iran's judiciary claimed the men had been accused of bringing 'assassination equipment' into the country.
Iran has carried out several hangings during its war with Israel, sparking fears from activists that it could conduct a wave of executions after the conflict ended.
Iran identified the three men executed as Azad Shojaei, Edris Aali and Iraqi national Rasoul Ahmad Rasoul.
Amnesty International had previously raised concerns that the men could be executed.
Wednesday's executions bring the total number of hangings for espionage around the war up to six since June 16.
Activists fear more people will be executed, particularly after Iran's theocracy issued a deadline for people to turn themselves in over spying.
People in Iran, meanwhile, began trying to return to their normal lives as a shaky ceasefire with Israel, negotiated by US President Donald Trump, appeared to be holding.
State media described heavy traffic around the Caspian Sea area and other rural areas outside of the capital, Tehran, as people began returning to the city.
Tehran experienced intense Israeli airstrikes throughout the war, including those that targeted Iran's top military leadership and other sites associated with its ruling theocracy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Make Iran Great Again? 'Tehrangeles' debates next steps in their homeland
A woman in a "Make America Great Again" hat leads a chant for "regime change" in Iran. The crowds dance and wave Iranian, Israeli and American flags as Persian music blasts. Car horns beep in support but also some annoyance in LA's gridlocked outside the West LA Federal Building are a common site, but even by LA standards this one is unusual, happening under the watchful eyes of armed US Marines, controversially ordered there by President Trump during protests against immigration raids. But these immigrants are proudly demonstrating in MAGA hats in support of President Trump and his decision to intervene in the Israel-Iran conflict by launching air strikes against Iranian nuclear latest on Iran-Israel conflictTalk of regime change resonates with fleeing Iranians"We want regime change in Iran," says Bita Ashrafi, who left Iran 50 years ago and attended the protest wearing a "Trump Was Right About Everything" hat. "I fully support President Trump's decisions because this has been going on for 46 plus years - the tyranny, the dictatorship."West LA, often called Tehrangeles, is home to the largest population of Iranians outside of Iran, formerly known as Persia. There are Persian restaurants and bookstores and shops selling the saffron and rose ice cream popular in of Southern California's Persian Americans are in full support of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. But others say the involvement of the US, known as the "Great Satan" in Iran, will only bolster Iran's Ashrafi took to the streets with several hundred others to show her support for Trump and regime change in Iran a day after a "No War" protest broke out in the same spot in response to the US "bunker busting" bombing of nuclear sites in US president said the action was necessary because Iran was close to developing a nuclear bomb. Tehran has always said its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Trump takes victory lap but big questions remainWhat leaked intel report tells us about damage to Iran sitesPersian Americans are worried about friends and family in their homeland who they've struggled to reach with Iran's phones and internet shut off. They also have strong feelings about how their adopted country should respond to Iran."Do not negotiate with them. They will go back to terrorising the world," said Farzan Seyed, who was dressed in a MIGA (Make Iran Great Again) hat - the acronym coined recently by Trump on social media - and a tie showing the lion and sun emblem from Iran's pre-1979 flag. He says Trump should show support for regime change but not get too involved. "The people have to choose," he says, though he hopes they choose exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi who also lives in the United families in Southern California lost so much when they fled Iran, he says, adding that when they get together – whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baháʼí or Zoroastrian – they "speak with one voice from West LA" against the Islamic Iranian Americans dispute that there is one voice. The cafes and restaurants in West LA are full of debates about what should and could happen next in Iran. And not everyone in the community wears MAGA hats and supports the US bombing.'We're exhausted' - how Iranians feel after fragile ceasefire'We thought it was the end' - Israeli town reelsRoozbeh Farahanipour – once imprisoned in Iran for his activism - says he fears the US involvement will push Iran into a broken, uncertain future."The job needs to be done by Iranian people," he says in one of the three restaurants he now owns in the heart of Tehrangeles. "If we look at the history, I don't think that's the result of the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, even Syria." While he voted for Trump, Mr Farahanipour says he's disappointed in the president. He knows that's not a popular opinion in this community and it's caused a rift with one of his oldest and closest friends, Elham the majority of this region's Persian community fled to LA in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution, Mr Farahanipour and Ms Yaghoubian came later in 2000 after they were both targeted as enemies of the state for creating an underground opposition Farahanipour was arrested along with his mother and several friends for his activism during a meeting at his home. Ms Yaghoubian escaped arrest – she was meant to be at Mr Farahanipour's house that night but her own mother stopped her from going. For decades, they have worked together as activists in Iran and in LA, where they both became successful entrepreneurs. Together they were instrumental in getting a corner of LA named "Persian Square." Later, they successfully lobbied the city to rename part of Westwood Boulevard "Women Life Freedom Square" in honour of Masha Amini, who was killed by Iran's morality police in 2022 for not wearing her hijab head covering the way they wanted."We were shoulder-to-shoulder, until now," says Mr Yaghoubian agrees. She says she has never been supportive of any military action in Iran until now. She thinks the time is right and that the Israeli and the US attacks on Iran will help Iranians rise up and overthrow the majority of people in Iran are "living in poverty," she says. Her friends there tell her they have nothing to lose. "This is the only opportunity for the Iranian people to rise and make a change," she others in Southern California's Persian community they both fret over loved ones back in Iran, even if they don't see eye to eye on how the US should respond to Iran. When President Trump warned "everyone to evacuate" Tehran earlier this month, the world saw footage of thousands of terrified Iranians stuck in traffic trying to escape an escalation in the war. Writer and actor Mary Apick, who was a child star in Iran and now lives in Los Angeles, says she is heartened watching how many Iranians she saw helping each other amid the traffic, sharing water and gasoline and offering strangers rides. "There's a camaraderie which is unbelievable," she says, adding that she has family she is worried about in Iran. "This regime has to go. People are sick and tired."
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Imperial calculations
Photo byRegime change doesn't happen overnight. Israel has now spent almost two years immolating the Gaza Strip without achieving its stated aims of destroying Hamas and installing a pliant administration. It has also tried, over a much longer period, to topple its most powerful regional opponent: penetrating the security apparatus of Iran, assassinating its senior officials and working to ensure its diplomatic isolation. This strategy culminated in Israel's ferocious assault, beginning on 13 June, in which it rained missiles down on Iranian military sites, infrastructure and residential areas, killing at least 430 people and injuring 3,500, while enlisting Washington to bomb the major nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. It looked like there were no limits to the escalation. Yet after less than two weeks of bloodshed, the White House brokered a ceasefire which, for now, has left the Iranian government intact. There was a striking contrast between Israel's pronouncements at the outset of the war – that the country must prepare for a 'prolonged campaign', that the fighting would continue for 'as long as it takes' – and the speed with which an agreement, however fragile, was signed. Donald Trump claimed that, thanks to his deal-making, a conflict which 'could have gone on for years' and 'destroyed the entire Middle East' had been averted 'forever'. Then, after only a few hours, his optimism started to unravel, as the two sides continued to exchange fire. How should we interpret this convoluted episode? What light does it shed on the relationship between Israel and its Western backers, including Keir Starmer's Britain? For Tel Aviv, the target was not just the Iranian nuclear programme, which US intelligence assessments have long described as 'defensive' in nature – 'designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities'. Also in the crosshairs was the fact of Iranian sovereignty: the existence of a non-compliant regional power with a network of allies – including the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas – who are ideologically opposed to Israel's existence and determined to resist its expansionist project. The ultimate goal, as Benjamin Netanyahu has all but acknowledged, is to turn this troublesome state into either a vassal for the West or a Balkanised territory without an effective central government. Israel decided to mount its operation in June not because Iran was on the offensive, but because it had been reduced to its weakest point in decades: rattled by domestic protests, and unable to rely on an 'axis of resistance' following the rout of Hezbollah and the fall of Bashar al-Assad. The chaos that would flow from the Israeli plan is considerable. In Iran, it would likely lead to mass civilian casualties, the collapse of critical infrastructure and the descent into ethnic conflict, giving rise to political tendencies that would make the country's current 'hard-liners' look moderate. Were Tehran to respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz, it could trigger a global energy shock and soaring inflation, while the outflow of refugees would at the same time catalyse another 'migration crisis'. In the event that more foreign actors join the fray, it would transform the country into the Ukraine of the Middle East: a battleground that rival geopolitical blocs would use to test their mettle. Israel, however, seems to have factored all this into its strategic vision. It has already mastered the art of managing chaos – turning the convulsions in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria into the everyday business of government. The country that is less prepared for such a polycrisis is the US. The overarching purpose of Trump's foreign policy, often mischaracterised as isolationism, is to complete the 'pivot to Asia' which began under Barack Obama: withdrawing from secondary theatres so that the US can focus its efforts on containing China. In the Middle East, this is supposed to involve replacing direct intervention with oversight from a distance: creating a stable security architecture in which local subordinates can act on America's behalf. Trump told the crowd at his inauguration to judge his administration 'not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into'. He knows that any deviation from this doctrine would be stridently opposed by key parts of his Maga coalition. Yet it appears that, early in his second term, Trump came under pressure from both the Israeli government and the neocons in his administration, who convinced him that he could take a middle route: smashing this long-term adversary while avoiding another extended military debacle; assisting Israel without indulging its desire for sustained conflict. The goal, it seems, was a limited mission that would procure Iran's 'unconditional surrender', winding down its nuclear programme and further weakening its regional position. This policy was forced through over the objections of less interventionist Republicans in the president's inner circle. Trump's ceasefire deal was announced on 23 June as evidence that his approach has succeeded: hobbling Iran while containing a wider conflagration. Yet his declaration of 'peace' turned out to be premature. While the US was desperate to broker this short-term solution, Israel remains set on its long-term objective of an all-out war that would draw in the hegemon. Even if Tel Aviv accepts a temporary pause in the hostilities (which can hardly be taken for granted, given its flouting of similar agreements in Gaza and Lebanon), it nonetheless sees the past two weeks as a significant stride towards meeting this ambition: a test-case which suggests that, when push comes to shove, America will intervene on Israel's side, even if this threatens to undermine its own geopolitical priorities. Secure in this knowledge, Israel can wait until the moment is right to manufacture another crisis and force a further reckoning. In the meantime, it can simply deploy the same tactics it has used against Hezbollah, launching semi-regular strikes to keep Iran in check and prevent any rebuilding of its defensive capability. What we have, then, is a repetition of the fundamental dynamic in Gaza: Israel pursues a strategy so reckless and bloody that it conflicts with the US's ostensive regional interests – yet Washington naively convinces itself that it can reconcile the two, and so continues to support its wayward ally, descending even deeper into this endless quagmire. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Where is Europe in the equation? Since the eruption of conflict in Ukraine and Gaza, the fantasy of European 'strategic autonomy' has been exposed as precisely that. The EU and UK have reaffirmed their subservience to American power, at the cost of both their energy security and moral credibility, while embarking on a frenzied armament drive to bolster 'the West' against its civilisational enemies. More than ever, the continent has been reduced to an enclave of empire. Starmer's response to the Iran crisis is illustrative. While his government recently joined in the rote condemnation of Israeli atrocities, and took the symbolic step of suspending a small number of arms licences, it is obvious that no material shift has taken place. The Prime Minister responded to Israel's latest aggression in exactly the same way as he reacted to its assault on Gaza: by invoking the country's 'right to self-defence' – which, in practice, means its right to exercise a monopoly of violence over the entire region. He described the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme as the major 'threat to regional security', while saying nothing about the nuclear stockpile of the country which has, over the past year, launched direct attacks on five of its neighbours: Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and finally Iran. He called for 'de-escalation', initiating a round of faux shuttle diplomacy with Jordan and Oman, before offering his full-throated support for Trump's escalatory bombing. There could be no clearer sign of Starmer's attachment to the Atlanticist script. And yet, there is every indication that the script itself has become increasingly confused. On the one hand, the UK government made sure to dial up its jingoist rhetoric and hold out the possibility of joining a US-led campaign. On the other, its plea for a 'return to the negotiating table' seemed to chime with America's desire for a speedy settlement, amid concerns that the situation might spiral out of control. These contradictory signals reflect a deeper ambivalence in Washington, where imperial strategists continue to debate whether their unconditional commitment to Israel is compatible with their new orientation towards China. While the US is beset by this uncertainty, its European proxies find themselves in the risible position of trying to second-guess America's course of action so that they can adjust their policies accordingly. They are not only refusing to act in their national interests; they are attempting to anticipate the decisions of a world power that lacks a lucid sense of its own. As Israel strives to impose a new war in the Middle East, Britain's response will be determined not by considerations of peace or justice or even political realism, but by the question 'What does America want?' – even if the answer is opaque to America itself. [See also: There won't be a 'final victory' for Iran or Israel] Related
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Trump defends US strikes on Iran as intelligence assessment stirs debate
'This was a devastating attack, and it knocked them for a loop,' Mr Trump said as his administration deployed a phalanx of top officials to defend his claims that Iran's nuclear programme was 'completely and fully obliterated'. US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said the leaked intelligence assessment, which said Iran suffered a delay of only a few months, was 'preliminary' and 'low confidence'. President Donald Trump speaks during a media conference at the end of the Nato summit as secretary of state Marco Rubio, right, and defence secretary Pete Hegseth listen, in The Hague, Netherlands (Alex Brandon/AP) US secretary of state Marco Rubio said the officials who disclosed the findings are 'professional stabbers'. The White House pointed to a statement from the Israel Atomic Energy Commission that said Iran faced a setback of 'many years'. Drawing reliable conclusions about the impact of the US strikes is difficult, making the issue a breeding ground for competing claims that could determine how American voters view Mr Trump's risky decision to join Israel's attacks on Iran. Also at stake are Mr Trump's next steps in the Middle East, where diplomatic efforts could be required to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program. Iran maintains that its atomic ambitions are for peaceful purposes, while US and Israeli leaders have described the country's nuclear programme as the precursor to obtaining a nuclear weapon. One of the targets of the US attack was Fordo, where nuclear infrastructure is buried deep underground. Damage at Fordo enrichment facility after strikes in Iran (Maxar Technologies via AP) The Israeli commission said in a statement that the bombing 'rendered the enrichment facility inoperable'. The statement was distributed by the White House and the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other parts of Iran's military nuclear programme, have 'set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years', the statement said. In addition, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Al Jazeera that there was significant damage from US bombers. 'Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure,' he said. The episode has triggered some of Mr Trump's longstanding vendettas against leaks and intelligence officials, who he has often viewed as a part of a 'deep state' dedicated to undermining his agenda. He also lashed out at media outlets that reported on the classified assessment, describing them as 'scum' and 'disgusting'. President Donald Trump dismissed media reports (Piroschka Van De Wouw, Pool Photo via AP) Mr Trump said questioning the effectiveness of the strikes was disrespectful to the military, which flew stealth bombers halfway around the world to attack the nuclear facilities with weapons designed to penetrate deep underground. The reports, he said, were 'very unfair to the pilots, who risked their lives for our country'. One critical question is whether enriched uranium, which could be developed into fuel for a nuclear bomb, was moved out of facilities before the US strikes. 'I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out, because we acted fast,' Mr Trump said. He added that 'it's very hard to move that kind of material, and very dangerous'. Classified briefings for legislators, originally scheduled for Tuesday, are now expected to take place on Thursday and Friday.
